Skip to main content

Full text of "The Journal of Hellenic studies"

See other formats


^ft.V;'";    :: 



3"iZtireA  ^6*?* 








VOLUME   XXVII.   (1907 






The  Rights  of  Translation  and  Reproduction  are  Reserved 

Richard  Clay  and  Sons,  Limited 

bread  street  hill,  e.c.    and 

bungay,  suffolk. 


Rules  of  the  Society 

List  of  Officers  and  Members    

Proceedings  of  the  Society,  1906-1907    

Financial  Statement - 

Additions  to  the  Library    

Accessions  to  the  Catalogue  of  Slides       

Notice  to  Contributors        

Compton  (W.  C.)  and  H.  Awdry     Two  Notes  on  Pylos  and  Sphacteria 

...  xliii 
...  Ixv 
...  lxxii 
. . .  lxxvii 
...     274 

Dawkins  (Pi.  M.) 
FORSTER  (E.  S.)   ... 

Gardiner  (E.  N.) 

Hasluck  (F.  W. 
Hicks  (E.  L.)  .. 
Macdonald  (G.) 

Miller  (W.)  .. 
Myres  (J.  L.)    .. 

Smith  (C.) 
Strzygowski  (J.) 
Tarn  (W.  W.)     .. 

Archaeology  in  Greece  (1906-1907)  ...  284 
Terracottas  from  Boeotia  and  Crete  ...  68 
On    the     'List     of     Thalassocracies '     in 

Eusebius         ...      

Throwing  the  Diskos  [Plates  I. -III.]    ... 
Throwing    the    Javelin    [Plates  XVII.- 


Inscriptions  from  the  Cyzicus  District  ... 
Three  Inscriptions  from  Asia  Minor 
Early   Seleucid    Portraits  [Plates  XIII., 


Monemvasia  [Plates  XV.,  XVI]  ...  229,  300 
The  '  List  of  Thalassocracies  *  in  Eusebius  : 

a  Reply  

A  History  of  the  Pelasgian  Theory 

The    Central    Groups   of    the    Parthenon 


A    Sarcophagus    of    the    Sidamara    type 

[Plates  V.-XIL] 

The  Fleet*  of  the  First  Punic  War 










TlLLYARD  (H.  J.  W.)        ... 

Wells  (J.) 
Wroth  (W.  W.) 

Notices  of  Books 

Index  of  Subjects 

Greek  Index 

List  of  Books  Noticed 

Instrumental  Music  in  the  Roman  Age  ...  160 

The  Persian  Friends  of  Herodotus         ...  37 

Peparethus  and  its  Coinage  [Plate  IV.]  90 







I.     B.-F.  Amphora  in  the  British  Museum  (B  271). 
II.     Attic  B.-F.  Lekythos  in  the  British  Museum  (B  576). 

III.  R.-F.  Pelike  in  the  British  Museum  (E  395). 
B.-F.  Fragment  at  Wurzburg. 

IV.  Coins  of  Peparethus,  etc. 

V.     Figure  B  from  the  Cook  Sarcophagus. 






















XIII,   XIV.  Early  Seleucid  Portraits. 

XV.  Monemvasia  :  Ilavayia  MvpriSicoTicro-a — 'Ayi'a  2o<£ia. 

XVI.  ,,  :  Town  Walls  and  Gate — Modern   town  at    Base    of 


XVII.  Nolan  Amphora  in  the  British  Museum  (E  326). 

XVIII.  Panathenaic  Amphora  in  the  British  Museum  (B  131). 

XIX.  B.-F.  Amphora  in  the  British  Museum  (E  256). 

XX.  Panathenaic  Vase  in  the  British  Museum. 



Throwing1  the  Diskos. 

1.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Louvre  G  96) 

2.  R.-F.  Kylikes  (after  Jiithner)      

3.  R.-F.  Kylix  (B.M.  E  6) 

4.  B.-F.  Kelebe(B.M.  B  361) 

5.  R.-F.  Krater  (after  Hartwig)      

6.  Diskobolos  on  Bronze  Lebes  (B.M.  559) 

7.  Fifth  Century  Bronze  (after  Burl.  Fine  Arts  Club  Catal.) 

8.  From  B.-F.  Tripod  (Berlin  1727)        

9.  10.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Naples :  after  Arch.  Zeit.)       

11.  Bronze  Diskobolos  (B.M.  675) 

12.  Lekythos  from  Eretria  ('E<£.  'Apx-) 

13.  The  Standing  Diskobolos  (Vatican) 

14.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Munich  795) 

15.  R.-F.  Kylix  (from  Gerhard) 

16.  R-F.  Kylix  (interior  of  Fig.  14) 

17.  R.-F.  Kylix  (after  Hartwig) 

18.  Myron's  Diskobolos  (Lancelotti) 

19.  Coins  of  Cos  in  British  Museum... 

20.  From  Panathenaic  Vase  (Naples  :  after  Bull.  Nap.) 

21.  R.-F.  Hydria  (B.M.  E  164  :  after  B.C.H.)         

22.  Athenian  Lekythos  (Boulogne :   from  Le  Musee) 

23.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Boulogne  :  from  Le  Musee) 

24.  B.-F.  Hydria  (Vienna)    



Inscriptions  from  the  Cyzieus  District. 

Inscription  at  Kermasti 


Terracottas  from  Boeotia  and  Crete. 

1.  Primitive  Standing  Figure  from  Boeotia 

2.  Primitive  Seated  Figure  ,.  ,,  

3.  Primitive  Standing  Figure      .. 

4.  Chariot  Group  from  Crete 

5.  Horseman  carrying  Faggots        



Peparethus  and  its  Coinage. 

A,  B.  Coins  with  winged  figure  and  head  of  Herakles    ... 
C.  Coin  with  seated  Dionysos    


A  Sarcophagus  of  the  Sidamara 

Fragment  A  of  the  Cook  Sarcophagus        

The  Sidamara  Sarcophagus 

Sarcophagus  Fragments  at  Smyrna 

Dioscurus  from  the  Sidamara  Sarcophagus 
Sarcophagus  from.  Selefkeh  at  Constantinople  ... 

Development  of  the  Sarcophagus-Capitals 

Relief  at  Berlin    

Sarcophagus  Fragment  in  the  British  Museum 

Muse  from  the  Mantinean  Basis         

The  'Matron  of  Herculaneum  '  (Dresden) 

Niche  in  Cemetery  of  the  Tulunids,  near  Cairo 
From  the  Throne  of  St.  Maximian,  Bavenna    . . . 

Leaf  of  Ivory  Diptych  in  the  B.M 

Portion  of  Pompeian  Wall-Painting 

Reconstruction  of  Pompeian  Stage-Facade 
Pompeian  Wall-Painting     


Instrumental  Music  in  the  Roman  Age. 

1.  Trigonum  or  Sambuca  

2.  Terracotta  Figure  at  Susa  (Woman  with  Zither)      

3.  Pandora         

4.  Terracotta  Figure  at  Susa  (Woman  with  Pandura  and  Wreath) 

5.  ,,  ,,        in  Mus.  Alaoui  (Man  playing  on  Pandura) 

6.  Sarcophagus  in  the  Taormina  Museum      

7.  Pan-pipes       

Three  Inscriptions  from  Asia  Minor. 

Inscription  from  Troy 


1.  Monemvasia  from  the  Land         

2.  Entrance  to  Kastro      

3.  Kastro 

4.  Arms  on  Well- Head  in  the  Castle       

The  Central  Groups  of  the  Pediments  of  the  Parthenon. 

1.  Scheme  of  Restoration  of  Central  Group  of  E.  Pediment       

2.  ,,  ,,  „  .,    W.  Pediment      

3.  i:.-F.  Vase  with  Birth  of  Athena      








Throwing-  the  Javelin. 

1.  Various  methods  of  attaching  the  amentum 

2.  Interior  of  B.-F.  Kylix  (B.M.  380) 

3.  From  the  Francois  Vase  (from  Furtwangler) 

4.  of  the  throwing-thong 

5.  E.-F.  Psykter  of  Phintias  (from  Ant.  Denkm.) 

6.  Panathenaic  Amphora  (Leyden,  from  Arch.  Zeit.) 

7.  From  R.-F.  Stamnos  (Mus.  Greg.)     

8.  From  B.-F.  Vase  from  Acropolis,  Athens 

9.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Munich:  after  Juthner)        

10.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Berlin:  after  Hartwig) 

11.  From  R.-F.  Kylix  (Torlonia  :  after  Juthner)    . 

12.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Munich  :  from  Arch.  Zeit.)    ...      . 

13.  R.-F.  Amphora  (Munich  :  after  Furtwangler) 

14.  From  R.-F.  Kylix  (Rome  :  App.  des  rom.  Inst.) 

15.  R.-F.  Kylix  (Berlin:  after  Juthner) 

16.  Panathenaic  Amphora  in  B.M.  (B  140) 

Two  Notes  on  Pylos  and  Sphaeteria. 

1.  General  View  Northwards  from  Cliffs  South  of  the  Panagia 
Plan  of  Pylos  and  Sphaeteria  (after  Grundy)    . . . 

2.  Red  Bluff  from  South  

3.  Red  Bluff  and  Route  between  Cliff  and  Bushes 

4.  Looking  North  from  same  point  as  preceding  ... 

5.  Looking  down  from  the  Notch  southward 

6.  Pylos  and  Sphaeteria  from  the  North        

7-       »  „  from  the  N.  boundary  of  Voithio-Kilia 


25 'J 





SESSION    1906-7. 

The  First  General  Meeting  of  the  Society  was  held  on  November  13th, 
1906,  when  the  Rev.  G.  C.  Richards  read  a  paper  on  'The  Ionian  Islands 
in  the  Odyssey,'  the  object  of  which  was  to  bring  before  the  notice  of 
English  students  the  theory  of  Prof.  Dorpfeld  that  by  Ithaca  Homer  in  the 
Odyssey  meant  the  island  later  known  as  Leucadia  or  (after  its  chief  town) 
Leucas,  and  in  modern  times  as  Santa  Maura.  This  theory  is  now 
conveniently  published  in  pamphlet  form  along  with  a  reply  to  Prof,  von 
Wilamowitz  (Athens,  Beck  &  Barth).  Since  the  excavation  of  the  sixth 
city  at  Hissarlik,  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  descriptions  of  scenery  in 
the  Iliad  has  been  demonstrated,  but  the  Odyssey  has  presented  such 
geographical  difficulties  as  apparently  to  exclude  personal  knowledge 
on  the  poet's  part.  The  greatest  difficulty  is,  however,  removed  by  M. 
Berard's  identification  of  the  Pylos  of  Nestor  with  Samikon,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Alpheius,  which,  if  correct,  supplies  an  instance  of  the 
transference  of  a  place-name  to  another  site.  Dorpfeld's  theory  starts  from 
the  comparison  of  Od.  ix.  21  with  xxi.  347,  which  shows  that  the  three 
islands  Dulichium,  Same  and  Zacynthus  are  off  Elis,  and  Ithaca  is  not. 
The  only  four  islands  worthy  of  being  reckoned  in  the  Septinsular 
Republic  (Corfu,  Paxo,  and  Cerigo,  not  being  in  question)  are  Cefalonia, 
Thiaki,  Zante,  and  Santa  Maura.  The  first  three  are  off  Elis  ;  Santa 
Maura  remains  for  the  Homeric  Ithaca.  The  ancients  thought  of  Leucas 
as  an  island,  but  as  one  that  had  been  in  earlier  days  connected  with  the 
mainland  :  they  therefore  identified  it  with  the  peninsula  in  Od.  xxiv.  57S, 
and  were  debarred  from  identifying  it  with  Dulichium  or  the  Odyssean 
Ithaca.  Recent  researches  have  shown  conclusively  that  Leucas  was  an 
island  in  1000  B.C.,  and  separated  from  the  mainland  then,  as  now,  by  a 
channel  liable  to  become  c  loked  unless  artificially  kept  open  for  naviga- 
tion. This  explains  the  transport  of  cattle  from  the  mainland  (Od.  xiv. 
IOO;,  where  the  Cephallenians  then  lived  (Od.  xx.  187);  and  also  the  four 
times  repeated  line  'I  do  not  think  you  came  by  land,'  which  it  is 
impossible  to  interpret  as  a  joke  of  Telemachus  at  the  moment  of  recognition. 
If  Leucas  =  Ithaca, Cefalonia  suits  Dulichium  well  (Dulichium,  if  a  real  place 
in  the  catalogue  of  Iliad  A,  cannot  be  imaginary  in  the  Odyssey),  Thiaki 
is  Same  ;  while  Zante  has  always  kept  the  same  name.  Thiaki  will  not 
suit  the   Homeric  data,     (i)    It   is  an   island    divided   almost  into  halves, 


with  two  mountains  of  approximately  the  same  height,  not  an  island  with 
one  conspicuous  mountain  {Od.  ix.  21).  (2)  It  is  not  'furthest  of  all  to 
the  west.'  (3)  It  is  so  close  to  Cefalonia  that  it  seems  to  be  part  of  it 
from  the  eastern  side  (contrast  with  this  ix.  25,  xxi.  346).  (4)  Yet  it 
•yOayLcCkr)  means  low-lying,  it  is  quite  inappropriate  to  it  ;  whereas  Strabo's 
interpretation  'near  to  the  mainland'  suits  Leucas,  and  if  the  other 
rendering  is  correct,  Leucas  has  more  level  land  on  the  coast.  (5)  The 
only  possible  site  for  the  Megaron  of  Odysseus  has  yielded  no  trace  of  pre- 
historic settlement  to  the  excavations  of  Dorpfeld  and  Vollgraff.  (6)  There 
is  no  possibility  of  identifying  Asteris  (Od.  iv.  844)  with  the  rock  of 
Daskalio.  (7)  The  local  identifications  in  the  Thiaki  are  all  modern  and 
suspicious  ;  the  island  was  deserted,  and  only  repeopled  early  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  Leucas  provides  (1)  a  suitable  site  for  Odysseus's 
home,  where  Dorpfeld  has  found  prehistoric  remains  ;  (2)  similarly  suitable 
sites  for  the  other  Odyssean  descriptions  ;  (3)  a  suitable  Asteris  with  a 
double  harbour  in  Arkondi,  between  Santa  Maura  and  Thiaki.  Changes  of 
population  (which  Dorpfeld  connects  with  the  Dorian  invasion)  pushed  the 
Cephallenians  into  the  islands  (Od.  xxiv  and  II.  ii).  The  inhabitants  of 
the  northern  island  passed  over  into  Same  and  founded  a  new  Ithaca 
there ;  while  the  inhabitants  of  Thiaki  founded  a  city  in  Cephellenia, 
which  existed  in  historic  times  under  the  name  Same  or  Samos.  This 
explains  the  statement  of  Pliny  (H.N.  iv.  15)  that  Neritis  was  an  early 
name  of  Leucas.  It  is  impossible  to  maintain  any  longer  that  by  Ithaca  the 
Odyssey  means  Thiaki.  Against  the  view  that  the  poet  had  no  correct 
local  knowledge,  and  merely  gave  his  fancy  play  (Von  Wilamowitz),  must 
be  set  the  ease  with  which  Leucas  satisfies  the  data  of  the  Odyssey. 

On  November  27th  a  special  general  meeting  was  held  for  the  purpose 
of  further  discussing  the  paper  read  on  November  13th.  No  one  was 
found  to  maintain  the  claims  of  Thiaki  adequately  to  represent  the  Ithaca 
of  the  Odyssey,  as  still  maintained  by  Berard,  and  in  Germany  by  those 
who,  like  Menge,  Michael,  Lang,  have  opposed  Dorpfeld's  view. — Prof. 
Ernest  Gardner  said  he  took  up  the  position  of  a  sceptic  rather  than  of  a 
convinced  opponent  of  Prof.  Dorpfeld's  theory  or  a  defender  of  the  identifica- 
tion of  Thiaki  as  Ithaca.  Prof.  Dorpfeld's  arguments  seemed  to  him  to  fall 
into  two  classes  :  those  which  dealt  with  the  geographical  position  of 
the  islands,  as  described  or  implied  by  Homer,  and  those  which  suggested 
a  minute  topographical  identification  of  sites,  such  as  the  stalactite  cave 
of  the  Nymphs  or  the  double  harbours  on  Asteris.  The  latter  were 
rather  a  source  of  weakness  than  of  strength  to  the  theory  ;  but  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  broader  geographical  evidence  for  Leucas  made,  in  Prof. 
Dorpfeld's  masterly  exposition,  a  very  strong  case,  if  we  were  to  recognize 
the  Homeric  topography  in  existing  islands.  We  must,  however,  remember 
that  this  theory  would  imply  that  the  Odyssey  was  composed  by  a  poet 
and  for  an  audience  familiar  with  the  Ionian  Islands,  and  before  1000  B.C., 
from  which  time  to  the  present  day  the  names  of  the  islands  had  been  as 
they  now  are.     Such  a  solution  of  the  Homeric  question  required  a  revision 


of  the  whole  evidence,  philological,  historical  and  literary,  as  well  as 
topographical,  before  it  could  be  accepted  ;  and  in  any  case  the  Odyssey 
was  interpreted  by  all  the  Greeks  of  the  historical  period  as  it  is  by  modern 
scholars.  To  them  the  Homeric  topography  did  not  correspond  to  any  actual 
topography  ;  and  there  did  not,  after  all,  seem  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting 
the  view  now  generally  held  that  the  poet's  imagination  rather  than  his 
familiarity  with  the  spot  was  responsible  for  his  descriptions.  Such  a  view 
was  more  in  accordance  with  the  usual  custom  of  poets  and  writers  of 
fiction.  It  was  generally  admitted  that  in  the  Odyssey  we  had  an  inner 
zone,  confined  mainly  to  the  Aegean,  within  which  the  geography  was 
familiar  to  the  poet  and  his  readers  ;  and  an  outer  zone  of  vague  traditions 
and  travellers'  tales,  where  the  knowledge  of  both  was  at  best  taken 
at  second  hand.  If  we  regarded  the  Ionian  Islands  as  belonging  to  the 
vague  rather  than  the  more  definite  region,  there  was  no  difficulty  in  keeping 
to  the  accepted  traditions  about  the  names  of  the  islands. — Prof.  R.  C. 
Bosanquet  said  that  minor  identifications  were  of  less  importance,  and 
general  correspondences  alone  should  be  looked  for.  On  the  whole, 
Leucas  reproduced  Odyssean  geography  better  than  Thiaki.  Dorpfeld's 
finds  in  Leucas  suggested  to  him  an  earlier  d  ite  than  the  period  generally 
described  as  Mycenaean.  The  transference  of  names  was  extremely  likely, 
and  had  parallels  in  mediaeval  and  modern  Greek  history.  But  he  was 
not  disposed  to  accept  Dorpfeld's  view  that  this  took  place  at  a  very  early 
date. — After  the  reader  of  the  paper  had  made  a  brief  reply  the  President, 
in  summing  up,  regarded  the  claims  of  Thiaki  as  conclusively  disproved, 
but  maintained  that  Homer  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  safe  source 
for  history. 

The  Third  General  meeting  was  held  on   February  19th.    Professor  P. 
Gardner,  President,  was  in  the  Chair  and  spoke  as  follows  : — 

Since  our  last  meeting,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  our  Vice- 
Presidents  has  been  somewhat  suddenly  carried  away  by  death,  Professor 
Henry  Pelham,  President  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford.  He  was  from  the 
first  a  Member  of  the  Council  of  this  Society,  and  a  Vice-President  from 
1895.  In  the  foundation  of  what  may  be  called  offshoots  of  this  Society, 
the  British  Schools  of  Athens  and  Rome,  he  took  an  important  part  : 
the  latter  was  indeed  a  special  child  of  his  and  he  was  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  the  School.  Ever  since  our  Society  was.  founded  Professor 
Pelham  has  been  its  earnest  supporter  at  Oxford,  and  has  done  all  in  his 
power  to  further  its  aims. 

His  work  and  his  interests  lay  rather  in  the  direction  of  Roman  than  of 
Greek  antiquity.  But  while  an  acknowledged  master  in  his  own  studies, 
he  by  no  means  limited  his  interest  to  them,  but  in  a  broad  and  earnest 
spirit  applied  his  great  powers  of  organization  and  his  strong  personal 
influence  in  support  of  the  whole  movement  for  broadening  and  deepening 
classical  study,  for  promoting  research,  travel  and  excavation,  for  spreading 



an  interest  in  the  inscriptions  and  the  monuments  of  the  ancient  world,  in 
which  this  Society  is  so  deeply  interested.  Though  he  never  himself 
contributed  to  our  Journal,  he  did  so  copiously  through  his  pupils. 

I  have  often  felt  that  if  Professor  Pelham  had  chosen  a  political  career, 
he  would  have  attained  a  very  high  position.  He  had  all  the  qualities  of  a 
statesman.  But  he  preferred  the  more  modest  career  of  a  University 
teacher  and  organizer.  And  his  justification  has  been  that  his  presence 
and  work  at  Oxford  has  raised  the  whole  tone  of  the  place.  More  I  think 
than  any  other  man  has  he  succeeded  in  imparting  a  high  purpose  to 
Oxford  study  and  a  high  tone  to  University  business.  All  this  was  the 
result  of  a  noble  personality.  An  English  gentleman  of  the  highest  type, 
straightforward,  manly,  open  minded,  ready  to  appreciate  any  kind  of 
excellence,  generous  almost  to  a  fault,  he  was  everywhere  a  central  figure, 
the  doyen  of  ancient  history  at  Oxford,  the  leader  whom  we  were  all  glad 
to  follow.  His  departure  leaves  a  great  void  which  those  who  remain  must 
try  between  them  to  do  something  towards  filling. 

Mrs.  S.  Arthur  Strong,  LL.D.,  Litt.D.,  then  read  a  paper  by  Professor 
J.  Strzygowski  (printed  in  this  volume,  pp.  99-122).  The  paper  was 
discussed  by  Miss  Gertrude  Bell,  Sir  H.  Howorth  and  Mr.  Arthur  Smith. 

The  Fourth  General  Meeting  was  held  on  April  30th,  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  in 
the  chair.  Prof.  Ridgeway  read  a  paper  on  '  The  True  Scene  of  the 
Second  Act  of  the  "  Eumenides  "  of  yEschylus/  of  which  the  following  is  a 
summary.  His  object  was  to  inquire  whether  the  true  scene  of  the  second 
act  was  really  the  Erechtheum  on  the  Acropolis,  or  whether  we  ought  not 
rather  to  look  for  another  site.  It  would  be  said,  What  more  appropriate 
spot  than  on  the  Acropolis  and  at  the  most  famous  shrine  of  Athena  in 
the  '  strong  house  of  Erechtheus '  ?  But  the  action  required  a  shrine 
which  contained  an  ancient  bretas,  at  which  manslayers  took  sanctuary, 
and  moreover  a  bretas  called  by  the  name  of  Pallas,  not  of  Athena  ;  for 
the  Pythian  priestess  speaks  of  Pallas  ;  Apollo  bids  Orestes  take  refuge 
with  Pallas,  and  it  is  Pallas  who  will  see  that  he  has  a  fair  trial  ;  and  the 
Eumenides  on  their  departure  address  the  goddess  as  Pallas,  though 
Orestes  twice,  and  the  Chorus  twice,  speak  of  Athena.  Now  there  is  no 
evidence  that  there  was  any  such  bretas  in  the  Erechtheum  or  on  the 
Acropolis,  or  that  such  bretas  ever  conferred  sanctuary  ;  whilst  there  is  the 
strongest  evidence  that  the  goddess  of  the  Erechtheum  was  only  known  as 
Athena,  or  the  Polias,  or  Athena  Polias,  never  as  Pallas.  It  is  still  more 
strange  that  not  one  of  the  four  famous  courts  for  the  trial  of  homicide  was 
situated  at  the  Erechtheum  or  on  the  Acropolis,  though  in  the  Prytaneum, 
on  the  northern  slope,  were  tried  weapons  which  had  shed  the  blood  of 
men  or  oxen.  It  seems  incredible  that  iEschylus  should  not  have  placed 
the  trial  at  one  of  the  four  places  where  from  of  old  manslayers  were  tried, 
for  the  Attic  audience  would  have  been  very  censorious  if  he  had  placed 
the  trial  at  a  spot  where  there  was  neither  sanctuary  nor  law  court.     There 


were  five  courts  for  the  trial  of  bloodshed  :  (i)  the  Areopagus,  on  the  hill 
west  of  the  Acropolis,  where  were  tried  those  accused  of  wilful  murder, 
poisoning  and  arson  ;  (2)  the  to  eVt  UaXXaSio)  south-east  of  the  Acropolis, 
outside  the  walls,  where  were  tried  those  guilty  of  involuntary  homicide 
(toU  uKovo-L'tis  airoKTeivciGi,)  ;  (3)  the  Delphinium,  a  shrine  of  the  Delphian 
Apollo,  where  those  who  pleaded  justification  (for  instance,  for  having  slain 
an  adulterer)  were  tried  ;  (4)  the  court  at  Phreattys,  on  a  tongue  of  land 
at  Zea,  where  a  man  who  was  said  to  have  shed  blood  during  his  period  of 
exile  was  tried,  docked  in  a  boat  off  the  shore,  the  judges  seated  on  the 
land  ;  (5)  the  Prytaneum,  already  mentioned.  It  is  obvious  that  the  last  two 
cannot  have  been  the  scene  of  the  trial  in  the  play.  The  Areopagus  will 
not  do,  for  there  is  not  a  jot  of  evidence  for  the  existence  of  any  ancient 
image  there  called  either  Pallas  or  Athena,  Pausanias  mentioning  only  an 
Athena  Promachos  ;  nor  is  there  the  slightest  evidence  that  there  was 
ever  an  asylum  there.  Again,  the  Delphinium  will  not  do,  for  it  certainly 
did  not  contain  a  bretas  of  Athena,  but  rather  an  image  of  Apollo; 
moreover,  its  name  shows  that  it  was  not  an  immemorial  cult-spot,  since  it 
was  in  honour  of  the  Delphian  god,  who  first  urged  in  Athens  the  plea  that 
deliberate  homicide  could  be  justified.  Only  the  court  of  the  Palladium 
remains.  Here  there  was  a  most  ancient  xoanon  or  bretas.  This  bretas 
was  an  asylum,  for  each  year  the  image  was  taken  down  to  Phalerum  to 
the  sea,  doubtless  to  be  washed  in  order  to  rid  it  of  the  pollution  of  the 
manslayers  who  in  the  course  of  the  year  had  embraced  it,  as  Orestes  is 
supposed  to  have  done  (cf.  Eur.  Iph.  Taur.  1169).  The  only  name  ever 
applied  to  this  image  was  Pallas  or  Palladium.  Some  said  that  it  was  the 
Palladium  from  Troy  ;  others  that  Athena,  after  slaying  her  playmate 
Pallas,  in  atonement  set  up  an  image  of  her.  Finally,  the  court  for  trying 
involuntary  homicide  in  classical  times  was  held  there.  (1)  The  plea  urged 
for  Orestes  is  that  he  slew  his  mother  on  compulsion  by  Apollo,  and  Apollo 
bears  this  out.  (2)  Apollo  urges  justification.  It  may  be  said  that 
justification  trials  were  held  at  the  Delphinium,  not  at  the  Palladium  in 
classical  times  ;  but  it  has  just  been  shown  that  the  Delphinium  is  a  later 
court,  as  its  name  implies,  and  it  derived  its  title  from  the  story  that 
Apollo  in  the  trial  of  Orestes  had  urged  that  certain  kinds  of  homicide 
could  be  justified.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Delphinium  was 
ever  an  asylum.  Hence  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  in  early  days, 
when  the  first  step  was  taken  towards  mitigating  the  dread  doctrine 
SpdaavTt  TraOelv,  those  who  could  plead  that  the)-  had  shed  blood  either 
by  mistake  or  justifiably  took  refuge  at  the  Palladium.  The  trial  of 
Orestes  is  represented  by  /Eschylus  as  the  first  for  murder:  the  court 
which  tries  him  is  called  a  #607x6?,  a  term  always  applied  to  immemorial 
institutions.  The  judges  here,  at  the  Delphinium,  Phreattys,  and 
Prytaneum  and  in  early  times  on  the  Areopagus,  were  the  Ephetae,  the  Court 
of  the  Fifty-one,  i.e.  50  Ephetae  and  the  King  Archon.  This  court  probably 
was  a  survival  of  the  ancient  king  and  the  Gcrousia,  the  only  tribunal 
in  a  primitive  community.     All  the  conditions  required  for  the  scene  of 

d  2 


Act  II  are  now  fulfilled  :  (i)  an  ancient  image,  (2)  called  Pallas,  (3)  used 
as  an  asylum,  (4)  with  a  court  attached  for  the  trial  of  involuntary 
bloodshed,  and  probably  in  early  times  for  justifiable  bloodshed  also.  But 
not  one  of  these  conditions  is  fulfilled  by  the  Erechtheum.  It  may  be 
urged  that,  though  Orestes  certainly  took  sanctuary  at  the  Palladium, 
nevertheless  he  was  tried  on  the  Areopagus ;  but  this  involves  the 
insuperable  difficulty  that  the  man  who  had  taken  asylum  would  be 
carried  from  that  spot  right  away  to  another  place,  all  the  while  being 
exposed  to  the  attacks  of  the  avenger  of  blood.  The  essence  of  such 
ancient  asylums  was  that  the  case  must  be  decided  where  the  man  was 
in  sanctuary.  If  Orestes  took  refuge  at  the  Palladium,  he  must  have 
been  tried  at  that  court.  Moreover  he  would  be  out  of  place  in  the 
Areopagus,  which  tried  cases  of  wilful  murder  only. — The  paper  was 
briefly  discussed  by  the  Chairman  and  Prof.  W.  C.  F.  Anderson,  the  latter 
expressing  considerable  doubt  as  to  the  proposed  removal  of  the  final 
scene  of  the  play  from  the  Areopagus. 

The  Annual  General  Meeting  was  held  at  Burlington  House  on  June 
25th,  the  President,  Professor  Percy  Gardner,  taking  the  Chair.  The  Hon. 
Secretary,  Mr.  George  Macmillan,  read  the  following  report  on  behalf  of 
the  Council  : — 

During  the  past  session  there  has  been  no  striking  event  to  record,  but 
the  Society  has  carried  on  its  regular  work  in  an  efficient  way  and  shown 
abundant  vitality  in  the  several  departments  of  its  activity. 

The  modification  in  the  rules  recommended  by  the  Council,  that  the 
office  of  President  be  in  future  tenable  for  five  years  only,  was  approved 
by  members  at  the  last  Annual  Meeting,  and  on  the  same  occasion 
Professor  Percy  Gardner  was,  under  the  terms  of  this  rule,  unanimously 
elected  President  in  place  of  the  late  Sir  Richard  Jebb. 

The  new  departure  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Society,  the  creation  of  a 
class  to  be  admitted  to  certain  privileges  of  the  Society  without  payment  of 
entrance  fee  and  to  be  known  as  "  Student-Associates,"  was  also  approved 
at  the  last  Annual  Meeting,  but  it  is  a  little  disappointing  to  find  that 
during  the  first  year  only  three  candidates  have  availed  themselves  of  the 

Professor  Henry  Jackson  has  been  appointed  a  Member  of  the  Editorial 
Consultative  Committee  in  the  place  of  the  late  Sir  Richard  Jebb. 

The  Secretary,  Mr.  J.  ff.  Baker-Penoyre,  has  obtained  leave  of 
absence  for  a  year,  which  will  be  spent  mainly  in  renewing  or  extending 
his  acquaintance  with  Greek  lands,  in  seeing  the  latest  results  of  excava- 
tion and  in  independent  research.  Mr.  Penoyre  had  earned  some  relief 
after  his  strenuous  labours  for  the  Society  and  will  no  doubt  come  back 
still  better  equipped  for  the  varied  duties  of  his  post.     The  Council  were 


fortunate  in  securing  the  services  of  a  member  of  the  Society,  Miss 
Katherine  Raleigh,  to  carry  on  the  Secretary  and  Librarian's  work  in  his 

The  continued  interest  which  the  Society  takes  in  the  progress  of  the 
British  Schools  of  Archaeology  in  Athens  and  Rome  is  emphasized  by  the 
fact  that  a  short  abstract  of  the  work  of  the  two  schools  was  inserted,  by 
special  permission  of  the  Council,  in  the  volume  of  the  Journal  of Hellenic, 
Studies  for  1906.  During  the  session  of  1905-6  the  efforts  of  the  British 
School  at  Athens  had  been  rewarded  by  the  discovery,  on  the  site  of 
ancient  Sparta,  of  the  shrine  of  Artemis  Orthia,  the  stern  goddess  in  whose 
honour  Spartan  youths  underwent  the  ordeal  of  scourging.  Thousands  of 
votive  offerings  were  found  there  buried,  among  them  a  series  of  terra- 
cotta masks  which  may  have  been  used  in  some  dramatic  ritual.  Early 
in  the  present  year  another  important  discovery  was  made.  The  sanctuary 
of  Athena  Chalkioikos  on  the  Acropolis  of  Sparta  was  identified  by 
inscribed  tiles  found  on  the  spot,  and  it  is  hoped  that  excavations  there 
may  proceed  next  season.  Among  the  finds  on  the  site  is  a  fifth-century 
statuette  in  splendid  preservation,  representing  a  trumpeter.  Further  dis- 
coveries of  ivory  figurines  have  since  been  made  on  the  site  of  the  temple 
of  Artemis  Orthia.  It  is  plain  that  the  Society's  grant  of  £100  for  the 
excavations  in  Laconia,  the  renewal  of  which  was  voted  in  January  of 
the  present  year,  has  been  abundantly  justified.  The  annual  grant  of  £25 
to  the  British  School  at  Rome  has  been  renewed  for  a  further  period  of 
three  years. 

The  Roman  School  has  undertaken,  with  the  sanction  of  the  Italian 
Government,  to  make  a  new  official  catalogue  of  the  sculpture  in  the 
Capitol ine  Museum.  The  work  is  well  in  hand  and  will  shortly  be 
finished.  Mr.  A.  M.  Daniel  was  appointed  Assistant  Director  of  the  School 
at  the  opening  of  the  session  with  the  special  duty  of  furthering  this 

The  Library. 

During  the  past  year  277  visits  to  the  Library  are  recorded,  as  against 
375  for  the  year  1 904-5,  and  372  for  the  year  1905-6,  Besides  those  books 
consulted  in  the  Library  396  volumes  were  borrowed,  the  figures  for  the 
preceding  years  being  312  and  415.  189  additions  to  the  Library  have 
been  made,  including  pamphlets,  and  exclusive  of  periodicals  in  progress. 
The  Council  made  the  usual  grant  of  .£75  for  Library  expense-. 

Some  interesting  accessions  are  :— Hermann's  Denkmaler  der  Malerei 
dt-s  Altertkums  (in  progress)  ;  Wiegand  and  Schrader,  Priehe  ;  Wiegand, 
Porosarchitectur   der  Akropolis  ;    the   5    Erganzungskefte   of  the  fahrbueh 

des  k.  k.  d.  arch.  Instituts.     The   Library  Catalogue  published  in  1903  has 
now  been  brought  up  to  the  present  date  by  adding  the  four  supplements 


under  one  cover.     The  price  of  the  complete  volume  to  members  is  2s.  6d. 
net,  and  that  of  the  supplements  6d.  net. 

The  Council  desire  to  express  their  thanks  to  H.  M.  Government, 
the  Authorities  of  the  University  Presses  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
the  Trustees  of  the  British  Museum,  the  Archaeological  Institute  of 
America,  the  University  of  California,  the  Committee  of  the  Archaeological 
Society  of  Athens,  the  University  of  Athens,  the  University  of  Aberdeen, 
the  University  of  Colorado  and  the  Institut  National  Genevois  for 
donations  of  books. 

The  following  authors  have  presented  copies  of  their  works  : — Dr. 
Ashby,  Mr.  S.  Chabert,  Mr.  J.  W.  Duff,  Mr.  S.  Eitrem,  Dr.  J.  W. 
Evans,  Dr.  Farnell,  Professor  Fairclough,  Mr.  C.  Gilliard,  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill, 
Miss  Hoste,  Dr.  Kenyon,  Dr.  Keser,  Mr.  G.  Macdonald,  Miss  McDowall, 
Mr.  A.  Malinin,  Mr.  F.  H.  Marshall,  Mr.  Phene  Spiers,  Mr.  F.  W.  Simpson 
Mr.  J.  W.  White,  Dr.  A.  Wilhelm. 

Miscellaneous  gifts  of  books  have  been  received  from  Sir  J.  Evans,  Miss 
E.  Fegan,  Professor  Ernest  Gardner,  Mr.  F.  W.  Hasluck,  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill, 
Mr.  J.  H.  Hopkinson,  Mr.  Rawlings,  the  Rev.  W.  G.  Rutherford,  Mr. 
Arthur  Smith,  and  the  Librarian. 

The  following  publishers  have  presented  recent  works  : — Messrs.  E. 
Arnold,  Clark,  Dent,  Heinemann,  Longmans  and  Green,  Macmillan, 
Methuen,  Nutt,  Reimer  and  Seernan. 

The  Collection  of  Negatives,   Slides  and  Photographs. 

During  the  past  year  the  sale  and  hire  of  slides  has  proceeded  briskly, 
and  many  new  negatives  have  been  added  to  the  collection.  The 
statistics  will  be  published,  as  arranged,  at  the  end  of  a  three  years' 
period  counting  from   1906. 

Members  may  find  it  convenient  to  know  that  there  are  in  the 
Library  four  complete  copies  of  the  Slide  Catalogue  (each  with  supple- 
ments), and  that  these  can  be  borrowed  on  the  same  conditions  as  the 
other  books. 

The  thanks  of  the  Society  are  due  to  members  of  the  Argonaut  Camera 
Club,  members  of  the  Hellenic  Society  and  others,  who  have  presented 
lantern  slides,  negatives  and  photographs. 


It  is  satisfactory  to  be  able  to  report  that  the  Society's  income  for  the 
year  has  exceeded  its  expenditure  by  .£111.  This  surplus  is  less  by  £61 
than  that  of  last  year,  and  a  comparison  with  last  year's  accounts  shows 
this  difference  to  be  accounted  for  as  follows  :  On  the  receipts  side  it  will 


be  seen  that  the  total  income  for  the  year  is  £87  less,  the  principal 
differences  appearing  under  the  headings  of  Entrance  Fees  and  Members' 
Subscriptions  in  Arrear.  The  falling  off  in  the  receipts  under  the  first 
heading  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  fewer  new  members  have  been 
elected  than  in  the  year  preceding  ;  and  in  the  second  case  by  the  fact  that 
a  number  of  resignations  received  have  been  those  of  members  whose 
subscriptions  were  in  arrear  and  could  not  be  recovered.  On  the  expenses 
side  noticeable  increase  has  to  be  reported  only  under  the  headings  of 
the  Library— due  to  the  completion  of  the  catalogue— and  the  additional 
.£100  granted  towards  the  excavations  in  Laconia.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
saving  has  been  effected  on  Sundry  Printing,  Postages  and  Miscellaneous 
Expenses  ;  while  it  has  not  been  thought  necessary  to  write  off  any  further 
sum  for  depreciation  of  Stocks,  so  that  the  Treasurer  is  left  with  a  balance 
over  on  the  year  as  stated  above. 

The  account  for  the  Journal  shows  that  while  the  sales  have  dropped  to 
the  normal  average  (the  sales  of  back  volumes  in  the  year  ending  May 
1906  were  unusually  high;  the  cost  has  also  been  less,  the  balance  on  this 
account  being  almost  identical  with  that  of  last  year.  The  sale  of  five 
copies  of  the  Aristophanes  Facsimile  has  well  repaid  the  cost  of  a  new 
circular  to  Librarians,  while  the  continued  sale  of  the  Supplementary 
Volume  on  the  Excavations  at  Phylakopi  is  also  satisfactory.  The  Lantern 
Slides  and  Photographs  account  shows  this  department  to  have  again  paid 
its  way,  there  being  a  small  profit  on  the  year. 

Turning  to  the  Balance  Sheet,  the  surplus  of  Assets  over  Liabilities 
shown  is  £283.  The  Debts  Payable  by  the  Society  stand  at  the  same 
amount  as  last  year,  viz.  :—  £293,  while  the  cash  in  hand  amounts  to  £"613, 
as  against  £376  last  year,  an  increase  of  ^237.  The  Donations  received 
for  the  Endowment  Fund  during  the  year  have  amounted  to  £\6  16s. 
The  sum  due  for  Arrears  of  Subscriptions  at  May  31st  stands  at  £127. 

The  Council  feel  that  the  financial  statement  may  be  regarded  as 
satisfactory.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  the  Endowment  Fund  established 
two  years  ago  will  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The  amount  (£500)  invested  of 
the  sum  already  received  has  produced  £\j  in  interest  this  year,  and 
the  steady  growth  of  this  fund  through  Donations  from  members  should 
prove  a  very  valuable  source  of  future  revenue. 


Hamdy  Bey,  the  Director  of  the  Museum  at  Constantinople,  having 
completed  twenty-five  years  in  that  important  office,  the  Council  thought 
it  right,  as  he  is  one  of  our  Honorary  Members,  to  send  him  a  congratu- 
latory address  in  the  name  of  the  Society,  and  the  compliment  was 
gratefully  acknowledged. 

In  recording  losses  by  death,  special   mention   should  be  made  of  two 


Honorary  Members,  Professor  Otto  Benndorf  of  Vienna  and  Professor 
F.  Blass  of  Halle.  Both  were  well  known  in  *this  country.  Professor 
Benndorf  was  always  ready  to  encourage  British  scholars  and  explorers  with 
counsel  and  assistance,  while  Professor  Blass  had  given  much  generous 
and  invaluable  help  to  Drs.  Grenfell  and  Hunt  in  the  decipherment  and 
identification  of  the  Greek  literary  papyri.  In  Professor  Pelham,  the 
President  of  Trinity,  the  Society  has  lost  one  of  its  Vice-Presidents  and 
a  man  who  had  taken  a  keen  interest  in  its  work  from  the  foundation.  A 
special  tribute  to  his  memory  was  paid  by  the  President  of  the  Society  at 
the  first  general  meeting  held  after  Professor  Pelham's  death. 

During  the  year  29  new  members  and  3  Student  Associates  have  been 
elected.  38  have  been  lost  by  death  or  resignation.  The  number  of 
members  at  present  on  the  list  is  918,  and  there  are  in  addition  184 
subscribing  libraries  (an  increase  of  14  in  the  year)  and  38  honorary 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Society  has  during  the  past  session  well 
maintained  its  position  in  its  various  fields  of  work.  The  only  dis- 
couraging symptom  is  that  the  number  of  new  members  elected  falls  short 
of  those  lost  by  death  or  resignation,  so  that  there  is  a  slight  diminution 
in  the  total.  It  is  not  at  present  serious,  but  it  is  very  important,  in 
view  of  the  obligations  undertaken,  that  the  Society's  revenue  should  be 
rather  increased  than  diminished,  and  the  Council  trust  that  all  members  will 
do  their  best  to  bring  in  new  candidates.  It  is  on  the  other  hand  satisfactory 
to  note  that  there  has  been  an  increase  of  14  in  the  number  of  subscribing 
libraries.  * 

The  Chairman  then  delivered  the  following  address  : — 

A  Society  like  ours  is  an  organism  with  a  continuous  life.  We  have 
lived  long  enough  to  form  traditions,  and  we  have  been  more  successful 
than  most  societies  in  giving  birth  to  other  societies  and  movements  for 
the  advancement  of  science.  So  long  as  I  have  the  honour  to  be  President 
I  shall  do  what  I  can  to  cherish  this  common  and  continuous  life.  It  is 
my  special  duty  to  contribute  towards  it  by  an  annual  address,  whereby  we 
mark  the  milestones  of  our  course,  see  what  we  have  done  and  what  more 
awaits  us  in  the  immediate  future. 

Every  society  which  has  a  continuous  life  is  anxious  to  keep  up  a 
connexion  with  the  past  by  a  commemoration  of  those  who  are  lost  to  it 
by  death.  One  of  the  most  cherished  institutions  of  Athens  was  the 
veKvoria,  the  feast  of  all  souls,  when  offerings  were  brought  to  the  family 
grave.  We  too  have  year  by  year  to  note  who  of  our  members  have 
passed  away,  and  what  they  have  bequeathed  to  us.  Fortunately  the  list  this 
year  is  a  short  one.  Of  prominent  members  we  have  lost  but  two,  Professor 
Pelham  and  Mr.  Shuckburgh.  Our  greatest  loss  is  certainly  that  of  our 
Vice-President,  Mr.  Pelham.      It  is  true  that  his  interest  was  centred  rather 


in  the  history  of  Rome  than  in  that  of  Greece,  and  indeed  in  Roman 
constitutional  history.  But  with  that  breadth  and  generosity  which  were 
the  basis  of  his  character,  he  extended  his  sympathy  to  research  in  all 
parts  of  ancient  life.  He  was  most  helpful  in  the  founding  of  this  Society, 
and  from  the  first  every  attempt  of  ours  to  widen  and  deepen  Hellenic 
studies  found  in  him  a  friend  and  ally.  I  have,  however,  at  a  previous 
meeting  spoken  more  fully  of  our  loss  in  Professor  Pelham.  I  am  glad  to 
say  that  a  project  is  now  being  carried  out  to  establish  a  memorial  of  him 
in  the  form  of  a  studentship  at  the  British  School  of  Rome  in  connexion 
with  the  University  of  Oxford. 

.Mr.  Shuckburgh,  one  of  our  earliest  members,  was  also  rather 
concerned  with  Roman  than  with  Greek  history.  But  his  work  in  editing 
the  orator  Lysias,  and  in  publishing  a  translation  of  Polybius,  bore  on 
Hellenic  studies.  He  was  an  active  member  of  the  teaching  staff  at 
Cambridge,  and  his  personal  character  helped  to  make  his  work  effective. 

Of  our  foreign  honorary  members  two  have  died,  Professor  Blass  and 
Professor  Benndorf.  Dr.  Blass  is  known  as  an  extremely  able  and 
many-sided  philologist.  His  works  on  Attic  orators  and  the  New 
Testament  writers  are  of  great  importance.  He  often  visited  England  and 
Ireland,  and  was  almost  one  of  us.  In  recent  years  he  rendered  invaluable 
service  to  Messrs.  Grenfell  and  Hunt  in  their  publication  of  the  papyri 
which  they  have  found  in  Egypt.  With  Dr.  Benndorf  I  had  much  to 
do.  For  many  years  he  stood  at  the  head  of  the  study  of  Classical 
Archaeology  in  Austria,  first  as  Professor  in  the  University  of  Vienna, 
later  as  the  head  of  the  Austrian  Archaeological  Institute,  which  was 
virtually  his  foundation,  and  of  which  he  was  the  guiding  spirit.  That 
Institute  has  done  a  mass  of  important  work.  Its  Jahrcslieftc  is  among 
the  most  important  of  archaeological  periodicals.  The  researches  of  its 
members  in  Lycia,  and  the  now  progressing  excavations  at  Ephcsus  have 
produced  results  of  great  value.  Dr.  Benndorf  was  a  prolific  writer,  and 
all  his  work  stands  at  a  high  level.  It  is  the  more  satisfactory  to 
remember  that  when  we  elected  him  as  honorary  member,  he  wrote  me  a 
letter  expressing  in  the  warmest  terms  his  pleasure,  and  saying  that  he 
regarded  our  Journal  z,s  second  to  none  in  the  value  of  its  contributions  to 
Hellenic  antiquities. 

While  speaking  of  the  works  of  our  deceased  members  I  should  call 
attention  to  a  volume  which  has  recently  appeared  of  addresses  and  papers 
by  Sir  Richard  Jebb,  appropriately  edited  by  Mr.  Butcher  and  Dr.  Vefrall. 
It  may  be  long  before  there  arises  another  scholar  so  accomplished  and  so 

id' in  his  sympathies  as  Professor  Jebb.  I  hope  that  our  Society  will 
always  cherish  the  traditions  which  he  represented.  In  particular  the 
Romanes  lecture  delivered  by  him  at  Oxford  is  perfect,  not  merely  in  taste 
and  expression,  but  also  in  comprehension,  in  its  realisation  of  what  ancient 
Greece  can  contribute  to  modern  ways  oi'  thought  and  feeling  and  action, 
how  what  is  best  in  it  may  live  again  in  our  ideals,  and  tend  to  counteract 
the  many  perverting  and  vulgarising  influences  of  modern  lite.      1  here  are 


many  scholars,  but  few  who  really  deserve  the  name  of  Humanist,  a  name 
which  since  the  days  of  Erasmus  has  scarcely  been  better  earned  by  any  one 
than  by  our  late  President. 

Individuals  come  and  go  ;  each  builds  his  little  part  of  the  fabric  of 
knowledge,  and  hands  on  the  task  to  successors.  Let  us  turn  from  our  own 
losses  to  the  more  cheerful  subject  of  the  progress  made  in  the  year  in 
Hellenic  studies,  a  progress  the  rate  of  which  varies  from  year  to  year,  but 
which  never  ceases. 

Of  the  activities  of  the  Society  during  the  year,  you  have  heard  from  the 
Report  of  the  Council.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  the  particular  part  of  that 
work  with  which  in  the  past  I  have  been  associated  proceeds  with  energy 
and  success.  The  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  of  which  twenty-six  volumes 
have  now  appeared,  has  kept  up  its  reputation  for  thoroughness  and 
originality.  The  issue  of  last  year  contains  excellent  papers  in  most  fields 
of  Hellenic  study. 

I  think  that  since  I  ceased  to  be  Editor  of  the  Journal,  it  has  covered  a 
somewhat  wider  field,  there  have  been  more  papers  primarily  historical. 
1  am  quite  prepared  to  rejoice  at  this.  Greek  life  in  all  the  variety  of  its 
manifestations  was  one.  Each  branch  of  Hellenic  study  throws  light  on 
other  branches.  The  history  of  institutions,  of  literature,  of  philosophy  and 
of  art  is  but  one  history  after  all ;  and  no  man  can  properly  understand  one 
side  of  Greek  history  who  has  not  some  knowledge  of  all. 

Any  complete  account  of  the  gains  of  the  year  is  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  slight  sketch,  and  it  is  the  less  necessary  that  I  should  weary  you  with 
a  long  catalogue  of  our  successes,  since  there  is  now  published  every  year, 
by  the  Classical  Association  under  the  editorial  care  of  Mr.  Rouse,  a  brief 
but  complete  summary  of  them,  a  most  useful  little  volume  called  The 
Years  Work  in  Classical  Studies.  I  cannot  speak  too  highly  of  the 
admirable  labours  of  the  group  of  scholars  who  thus  bring  together  the  facts 
which  so  greatly  interest  members  of  this  Society.  Their  publication  leaves 
me  at  liberty  to  select  for  comment  any  discoveries  and  any  books  which 
seem  to  me  of  greater  and  more  general  interest. 

I  will  begin  with  the  prehistoric  age,  a  field  in  which  English  scholars 
have  for  a  long  time  past  taken  a  prominent  place.  Mr.  Arthur  Evans  con- 
tinues his  work  at  Cnossus  in  Crete,  work  which  has  reconstructed  a  splendid 
and  hitherto  unknown  phase  of  early  Anatolian  culture.  Unfortunately 
bounds  are  set  to  Mr.  Evans'  inexhaustible  energy  and  enterprise  by  the 
smallness  of  funds  available.  But  this  year  he  tells  me  that  his  researches 
have  brought  to  light  a  complete  new  wing  of  the  great  palace  at  Cnossus, 
which  imperatively  demands  excavation  ;  and  my  knowledge  of  Mr.  Evans 
leads  me  to  think  that  in  one  way  or  another  he  will  succeed  in  carrying  out 
his  purpose.  Mr.  Evans  has  also  turned  his  attention  towards  more  fully 
working  out  the  material  already  available.  He  has  mapped  out  nine 
successive  periods  of  Minoan  history,  early,  middle,  and  later  ;  and  it  is 
being  by  degrees  discovered  that  the  prehistoric  remains  of  the  Cyclades, 
and  even  of  Italy,  may  be  classified  on  lines  parallel  to  those  which  can 


be  fixed  in  Crete.  There  is  now  set  up  at  the  Ashmolean  Museum  in 
Oxford  a  very  extensive  arrangement  of  originals  and  facsimiles  classified 
according  to  period,  giving  the  student  such  a  conspectus  of  the  products 
of  Minoan  civilisation  as  can  be  seen  nowhere  else,  unless  indeed  at  Candia. 

I  would  recommend  a  book  recently  published  by  a  member  of  our 
Council,  Prof.  R.  Burrows'  account  of  the  recent  researches  and  discoveries 
in  Crete.      It  seems  to  me  an  excellent  piece  of  work. 

But  I  feel  that,  interesting  as  are  these  peeps  into  a  pre-Grcek 
civilisation  in  Greek  lands,  this  Society  must  always  regard  with  still  deeper 
interest  the  literary  and  artistic  works  which  belong  to  the  historic  Hellenes, 
and  which  embody  that  spirit  which  has  been  one  of  the  two  or  three  great 
formers  of  European  civilisation. 

Sparta,  Syracuse,  Miletus  !  What  associations  cling  to  each  of  these 
great  names  !  To  the  early  history  of  each,  recent  excavation  has  brought 
contributions.  A  series  of  vase-fragments,  found  by  the  German  excavators 
at  Miletus,  which  reaches  back  to  the  Mycenaean  age,  proves  how  very 
earh-  was  the  foundation  of  that  Ionian  colony  which  was  not  only  in 
power  and  wealth  but  also  in  age  the  mother-city  of  Greek  Asia.  The 
ground  plans  of  many  of  the  most  important  temples  and  buildings  of 
Miletus  have  been  traced  ;  and  the  site  is  gradually  giving  up  its  secrets. 
Remains  of  the  ancient  Sikel  people,  found  at  Syracuse,  have  given  us  the 
touching  point  between  the  ancient  native  civilisation  of  Sicily  and  the  new 
culture  brought  in  from  Corinth  by  the  Greek  settlers.  At  Sparta  the 
excavations  of  the  British  School  have  brought  to  light  first  the  site  of  the 
shrine  of  Artemis  Orthia,  and  then  that  of  the  bronze-lined  temple  of 
Athena  Chalcioecus,  strewn  with  innumerable  votive  offerings  in  lead  and 
terracotta.  But  I  must  not  dwell  on  Sparta,  our  Sparta,  nor  anticipate  the 
•  accounts  of  discovery  which  will  later  in  the  year  be  laid  before  you  at  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  British  School  of  Athens. 

In  Rome  a  most  valuable  date  has  been  recovered  from  our  knowledge 
of  Greek  vases.  In  one  of  the  primitive  graves  laid  bare  by  Signor  Boni  in 
the  Forum,  there  was  found  a  small  vase  of  the  proto-Corinthian  class. 
This  little  vessel,  purchased  for  a  few  pence  by  some  early  Roman,  and 
given  by  him  to  some  deceased  friend,  has  a  value  which  cannot  be 
exaggerated  for  determining  the  stratification  of  the  site. 

The  slowness  with  which  the  results  of  the  excavations  at  Delphi  are 
published  is  a  matter  for  much  regret.  A  certain  number  of  plates  and 
photographs  have  appeared,  but  for  the  explanation  of  them  we  still  have 
to  trust  to  old  volumes  of  the  Bulletin  de  Correspondence  hilldnique. 
German  archaeologists  arc  losing  patience,  and  in  recent  numbers  of  the 
Athenian  Mittkeilungen  Drs.  Pomtow  and  Bulle  have  published  searching 
papers  on  the  geography  and  the  monuments  of  the  sacred  enclosure,  in 
which  some  of  M.  Homolle's  views  are  called  in  question.  These  papers 
will,  I  imagine,  not  hinder,  but  facilitate  the  French  publication.  But  we 
cannot  help  feeling  that  the  results  of  the  great  excavations  at  Delphi  will 
not  be  set  forth  in  an  orderly  way  until  they  are  no  longer  fresh. 

Perhaps  one  reason  for  the  delay  may  be  that  M.  Homolle  has  been 
recalled  to  France  to  occupy  an  important  position,  while  the  staff  of  the 
French  School  of  Athens  is  busy  with  the  renewed  excavations  at  Delos. 
These  promise,  in  their  way,  to  be  almost  as  important  as  those  at  Delphi : 
we  are  recovering  the  whole  plan  of  a  Greek  city  of  commerce,  with  its 
wharves  and  store-houses,  its  spacious  private  houses,  as  well  as  its  sacred 
buildings.  The  inscriptions  found  at  Delphi  and  Delos  are  of  immense 
extent  and  the  greatest  importance. 

I  may  mention  a  few  of  the  books  of  the  year  which  throw  light  on 
Hellenic  studies — among  these  are  Mr.  Walters'  Art  of  the  Greeks, 
Mr.  Freeman's  Schools  of  Hellas,  Mr.  Tucker's  charming  Life  in  Ancient 
Athens,  and  Mr.  Mahaffy's  enlarged  re- issue  of  his  most  genial  and 
delightful  account  of  the  Progress  of  Hellenism.  These  are  books  which 
do  not  appeal  only  to  the  learned,  but  which  bring  the  fruits  of  Greek 
thought  and  idealism  to  bear  upon  the  studies  and  the  life  of  modern 
times  ;  and  surely  there  never  was  an  age  which  needed  the  leaven  of 
Hellenic  culture  more  than  ours. 

Also,  since  no  line  can  be  drawn  between  the  art  of  Greece  and  that  of 
Rome,  I  may  add  Mrs.  Strong's  valuable  manual  of  Roman  Sculpture,  which 
may  be  considered  the  first  attempt  to  set  forth  in  order  the  chief 
monuments  of  the  great  nation  which  so  long  dominated  the  world. 

Greek  literature  will  naturally  and  necessarily  in  the  minds  of  English 
students  hold  a  more  important  place  than  Greek  art.  The  principles 
embodied  in  both  are  the  same,  but  we  are  as  a  people  more  literary 
than  artistic.  I  will  not  on  this  occasion  discuss  at  any  length  the 
discoveries  in  the  literary  field.  The  discoveries  which  come  nearest  to  us 
are  those  made  by  Messrs.  Grenfell  and  Hunt  of  papyri  in  the  graves 
of  Egypt.  There  is,  however,  not  much  to  say  this  year  in  regard  to  these. 
The  explorers  have  had  a  last  season  at  Oxyrhynchus  and  made 
considerable  additions  to  the  literary  papyri  found  last  year,  which 
contained,  as  you  are  aware,  new  Paeans  of  Pindar  and  fragments  of  a 
fourth  century  historian.  This  is  the  end  of  the  Oxyrhynchus  excavation  ; 
and  we  must  most  heartily  congratulate  the  self-sacrificing  scholars  who 
have,  with  infinite  pains  and  patience,  added  so  greatly  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  earliest  literary  manuscripts  of  Greece  and  of  the  history  of 
Ptolemaic  Egypt: 

The  researches  of  the  past  year  have  not  brought  to  light  any  work 
of  art  so  important  as  the  Charioteer  of  Delphi,  or  the  Aeginetan  marbles 
of  Furtwangler.  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  statues  found  are  two 
archaic  figures  from  Samos,  one  seated  and  one  standing,  both  male 
and  fully  draped.  They  are  of  the  same  heavy  Ionian  style  as  the  seated 
figures  from  Branchidac  in  the  British  Museum.  The  seated  figure  is 
a  portrait,  unfortunately  headless,  of  Aeaces,  father  of  Polycrates  the 
Tyrant.  A  dated  monument  of  this  kind  is  beyond  value:  and  it  enables 
us  to  push  back  the  beginnings  of  Ionian  sculpture  to  a  somewhat  earlier 
date  than  that  formerly  assigned  to  them.     At  the  other  end  of  the  history 


of  Greek  art,  the  researches  of  Danish  archaeologists  in  Rhodes  have  allowed 
us  finally,  it  may  be  hoped,  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Laocoon  in  the  middle  of 
the  first  century  B.C.  We  have  thus  secured  two  points  marking  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  the  splendid  development  of  Greek  sculpture. 

Of  recent  books  on  sculpture  perhaps  the  most  useful  to  students, 
though  not  the  most  learned,  is  Dr.  von  Mach's  series  of  500  photographic 
plates,  good  enough  for  ordinary  purposes,  and  published  at  the  price 
of  a  guinea.  A  learned  work  which  will  specially  interest  us  is  the 
Catalogue  of  the  Museum  of  Sparta  by  two  members  of  our  school,  Messrs. 
Tod  and  Wace.  We  may  hope  that  next  year  this  will  be  followed  by 
a  catalogue  undertaken  by  the  British  School  of  Rome,  comprising  the 
celebrated  sculpture  of  the  Capitol  Museum.  Catalogues  are  not  only 
valuable  to  researchers,  but  their  compilation  is  the  best  and  most  educative 
work  that  can  possibly  be  assigned  to  students. 

The  study  of  Greek  vases  has  in  the  past  been  greatly  hampered  by 
the  fact  that  it  has  only  been  possible  satisfactorily  to  pursue  it  in  the 
vase-rooms  of  one  of  the  great  museums  of  Europe.  Old  engravings 
of  vases,  such  as  those  published  by  Gerhard  and  Lenormant,  were  not 
sufficiently  accurate  to  be  trustworthy.  Twenty  years  ago  Prof.  Benndorf 
of  Vienna  greatly  facilitated  the  study  by  his  issue  of  Vorlegebldtter  for 
use  in  archaeological  instruction.  The  great  series  of  plates  now  being 
published  by  Furtwangler  and  Reichhold  carries  accuracy  even  further, 
enabling  us  really  to  examine  even  questions  of  style  without  journeying 
to  the  Museums  of  Europe.  A  like  service  to  ancient  mural  paintings 
is  being  performed  by  Dr.  Hermann  in  his  great  series  of  reproductions 
of  Pompeian  and  other  frescos.  It  is  a  pity  that  the  cost  of  these 
works  places  them  out  of  the  reach  of  ordinary  persons  ;  but  at  all 
events  they  may  be  consulted  in  libraries  such  as  that  of  our  Society. 
Meanwhile  Mr.  Walters'  new  book  on  the  History  of  Ancient  Pottery  has 
provided  for  the  first  time  an  adequate  handbook,  to  guide  those  who  are 
taking  up  the  study  of  Greek  vases. 

Perhaps  no  side  of  Hellenic  life  has  occupied  more  of  the  attention  of 
English  scholars  in  recent  years  than  Hellenic  religion.  By  a  sort  of  tacit 
compact  our  two  old  Universities  seem  to  have  divided  between  them  this 
fascinating  field.  At  Cambridge  Professor  Ridgeway,  Dr.  Frazer  and  Miss 
Harrison  have  worked  on  the  prehistoric  and  primitive  e'ements  which 
survive  in  Hellenic  religiun.  Dr.  Frazer,  in  his  recent  Adonis  Attis  and  Osiris, 
has  also  discussed  the  foreign  elements  which  made  their  way  into  the 
popular  religion  at  the  time  of  Greek  decay.  At  Oxford,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  higher  developments  of  Greek  worship  have  attracted  scholars. 
Dr.  Caird  has  written  an  admirable  work  on  the  theology  of  Greek 
Philosophers  ;  Dr.  Lewis  Campbell  has  given  an  account  of  the  religion 
embodied  in  works  of  Greek  literature  ;  Dr.  Farnell  has  published  a  most 
elaborate  and  learned  work  on  the  Culls  of  the  Greek  States,  whereof  two 
volumes  have  appeared  this  year.  I  wonder  whether  there  is  any  member 
of  this  Society  who  has  talent  enough  to  bring  together   all   these  various 


sides  of  Hellenic  religion,  and  give  us  a  complete  account  of  its  main 
features.  It  would  be  a  fascinating  task,  and  even  if  imperfectly  accom- 
plished would  be  a  great  help  to  the  purposes  of  our  Society. 

Before  concluding,  I  should  like  to  turn  for  a  few  minutes  from  the  past 
to  the  future,  to  see  what  tasks  now  lie  before  us,  in  what  directions  we  may 
hope  to  extend  the  field  of  Hellenic  studies.  In  this  work  we  have  now  the 
co-operation  not  only  of  the  Schools  of  Athens  and  Rome,  but  also  of  the 
Classical  Association,  whose  energy  and  enterprise  is  infusing  fresh  life 
into  humane  studies,  especially  in  the  northern  Universities. 

At  the  recent  International  meeting  of  Academies,  the  project  for  a 
great  Thesaurus  of  the  Greek  language  was  considered,  and  advanced  some 
steps  toward  actual  accomplishment.  At  the  meeting  Professor  Bywater 
represented  the  British  Academy  ;  but  the  enterprise  has  been  especially 
connected  with  the  name  of  our  late  President.  He  was  warmly  in  favour 
of  it  ;  and  if  it  is  finally  carried  out,  it  may  be  regarded  as  in  a  sense 
a  memorial  of  him.  I  am  glad  to  say  also  that  the  very  original  and 
thoroughgoing  studies  of  Mr.  Norman  Gardiner  on  Greek  Athletic  Sports 
are  likely  to  take  the  form  of  a  book,  which  will  I  am  sure  be  epoch-making 
in  the  subject  with  which  it  deals. 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  informing  or  reminding  the  Society  that  the 
third  International  Congress  of  the  History  of  Religions  will  be  held  at 
Oxford  in  September,  1908.  Many  continental  scholars  will  come  to 
England  to  take  part  in  it  ;  and  one  may  hope  that  the  study  of  Hellenic 
religion  will  be  among  those  which  will  profit  by  the  contact  of  mind 
with  mind. 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  this  learned  Congress  to  the  Olympic  Gaipes.  These 
also  are  to  be  held  next  year  in  England.  Their  interest  is  no  doubt 
mainly  practical.  But  it  is  worth  while  to  pause  and  mark  the  influence 
of  Greece  shown  in  the  very  fact  that  these  international  contests  are  called 
Olympic.  There  still  lingers  about  them  something  belonging  to  ancient 
Greece.  And  it  may  be  well  to  try  to  profit  by  the  occasion  by  bringing 
before  English-speaking  athletes  what  is  really  best  in  the  athletic  spirit  of 
ancient  Greece,  the  dignity,  the  love  of  beauty,  the  manliness  which  marked 
the  earlier  celebrations  of  the  Olympic  games,  and  to  point  out  how  in 
later  Greece  the  games  were  ruined  by  professionalism  and  over 

Another  good  prospect  is  offered  by  the  probable  intention  of  the 
Carnegie  Institution  at  Washington  to  regard  exploration  and  research 
in  the  lands  to  the  East  of  the  Mediterranean  as  not  outside  its  scope  ;  and 
there  is  a  prospect  that  some  part  of  its  munificent  endowment  may  be 
expended  in  researches  in  which  we  shall  have  an  interest,  if  not  a  share, 
in  Asia  Minor  and  Syria. 

Our  own  duty  is  most  closely  connected  with  the  excavation  of  Sparta. 
Since  the  Greek  Government  has  liberally  made  over  to  the  British  School 
the  site  second  to  Athens  in  Greece  in  historic,  if  not  in  archaeologic,  interest, 
it  behoves  us  to  strain  every  nerve  to  find  the  men  and  the  money  necessary 


for  the  full  carrying  out  of  so  important  a  task.  If  however  the  plan  which 
originated  with  Prof.  Waldstein  meets  the  success  for  which  we  must  all 
hope,  it  may  be  that  even  the  excavation  of  Sparta  will  take  second  place 
in  comparison  with  that  of  Herculaneum.  But  very  little  of  that  incom- 
parable site  has  as  yet  been  touched.  The  extraordinary  difficult)'  and 
expense  involved  in  cutting  through  so  many  feet  of  hard  deposit  has 
delayed  the  work.  But  we  must  remember  that  a  single  Roman  villa  at 
Herculaneum,  that  called  after  the  Pisos,  has  bestowed  on  us  not  only  a  large 
number  of  papyrus  rolls  containing  important  documents,  but  also  a  series 
of  statues  and  busts  in  marble  and  bronze  of  incomparable  extent  and 
beaut)r.  These  arc  almost  the  only  works  of  Greek  art  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  thanks  to  the  preservative  power  of  the  soil,  in  almost  perfect 
condition,  and  every  visitor  to  the  museum  at  Naples  must  have  felt  his 
breath  taken  away  by  the  number  and  the  beauty  of  these  works  of  Greek 
plastic  art.  It  is  within  the  mark  to  say  that,  if  we  leave  out  of  account  the 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles  and  the  Delphic  charioteer,  the  remaining  fruits  of 
the  great  excavations  of  Olympia  and  Delphi  are  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  modern  lover  of  art  surpassed  by  the  contents  of  the  Herculanean 
Villa,  May  we  but  find  one  such  more  ;  and  even  the  dullest  of  scholars 
and  the  driest  of  historians  will  feel  what  great  help  in  the  realisation  of 
the  past  is  given  us  by  the  researches  of  the  present. 

After  the  President's  address  the  Report  of  the  Council  was  presented 
to  the  meeting  and  adopted  unanimously. 

The  officers  and  members  of  Council  as  nominated  were  then  declared 
unanimously  elected  or  re-elected.  Mr.  Arthur  Smith  was  elected  as  Vice- 
President.  Professor  R.  Burrows,  Mr.  R.  M.  Dawkins,  Mr.  C.  C.  Edgar, 
Mr.  H.  Stuart-Jones  and  Dr.  Rouse  were  elected  to  vacancies  on  the  Council. 

The  proceedings  were  closed  by  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Auditors, 
moved  by  Dr.  Sandys  and  seconded  by  Professor  Waldstein,  who  spoke 
hopefully  of  the  outlook  for  the  proposed  excavation  of  Herculaneum. 

A    comparison    with    the    receipts    and    expenditure    of    the    last   ten    years 
is    furnished    by    the    following    tables : — 


Subscriptions.     Current 


Life  Compositions    


Entrance  Fees  



Endowment  Fund    

"Excavations   at    Phylakopi, 

"Facsimile    Codex    Venetus, 
sales   , 

Lantern  Slides  Account    

31  May, 


31  May, 


31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 

31  May, 




















































































*  Receipts  (less  expenses). 






Cost  of  Catalogue   

Sundry  Printing,  Postage,  and 

Stationery,  etc. 

Printing  and  Postage,    History 
of  Society 

Printing   and    Postage,       Pro- 
ceedings at  Anniversary 

Lantern  Slides  Account 

Photographs  Account 

Cost  of  Journal  (less  sales) 

Cost    of     Journal,     Reprint   of 
Vol.  XXIII 


"  Facsimile      of     the      Codex 
Venetus  of  Aristophanes"... 

'•  Excavations  at  Phylakopi  "... 

Commission   and    Postage   per 


I  (eprecial  ion      1  if     Stocks     of 
























31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May,  31  May  31  May, 
1898.   1899.  I  1900.  I  1901.   1902.    1903.   1904.   1905.  J  1905.    1907. 













72   137 

125   150 

948   960 




}  - 




o   916   865  1,432  1,335  i,573  1,095   10°9 






















Expenses  (less  sales). 

J.  H.  S   VOL.  XXVII.  (1907).     PL. 

J.  H.  S.  VOL.  XXVII.  (1907).     PL   II. 

J.  H.  S.  VOL.  XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  III. 

R.F.   PELIKE   IN  THE   BRITISH   MUSEUM  (E.  395). 


[Plates  I.-IIL] 

A.— The  Subs. 

'Then  the  son  of  Peleus  took  an  unwrought  metal  mass  which  anciently 
the  mighty  Eetion  was  wont  to  hurl.'1  This  a6\os  avroxoayvos,  which  was  at 
once  the  weight  to  be  thrown  and  the  prize  in  the  Homeric  competition,  was 
apparently  a  mass  of  pig  iron  just  as  it  came  from  the  furnace ;  probably,  as 
Mr.  J,  L.  Myres  suggests  to  me,  '  the  contents  of  one  of  the  old  open-hearth 
furnaces  of  the  Mediterranean  world,  the  natural  unit  quantity  for  the 
purveyor  and  buyer  of  the  metal,  the  classical  analogy  to  which  is  the  mass 
of  iron  (p,v8po<;  o-iStjpeos)  which  the  Phocaeans  threw  into  the  sea  before  their 
voyage  westwards.'  - 

The  word  aoXos  occurs  only  in  this  passage  of  the  Iliad  and  in  later 
imitations  of  Homer.3  The  latter  part  of  Iliad  xxiii.  is  generally  admitted  to 
be  a  somewhat  late  interpolation,  and  the  interpolator,  wishing  to  insert  in 
the  games  of  Patroclus  a  competition  similar  to  that  of  throwing  the  diskos, 
gives  to  his  interpolation  an  archaic  appearance  by  the  use  of  the  unusual 
word  cr6\o<?.  The  diskos  itself  was  sufficiently  familiar  in  Homeric  times  for 
the  term  'a  diskos  throw'  to  be  used  as  a  measure  of  distance.4  There  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  the  Homeric  diskos  differed  essentially  from  that  with 
which  we  are  familiar  in  later  times,  save  that  the  earlier  form  was  probably 
of  stone  instead  of  metal.  But  in  the  aoXos  avroxowvos  we  have  the  primi- 
tive type  from  which  all  lifting  and  throwing  competitions  have  arisen  :  a 
stone,  a  mass  of  metal,  or  a  tree  trunk  provides  for  early  man  a  weapon  in 
time  of  war,  a  test  of  physical  strength  in  time  of  peace. 

Of  these  primitive  contests  and  feats  of  strength  we  have  various  records 
in  Greece.  A  mass  of  red  sandstone  discovered  at  Olympia  bears  a  very 
early  inscription  to  the  effect  that  Bybon  with  one  hand  threw  it  over  his 
head.5  The  latter  part  of  the  inscription  is  unfortunately  doubtful.  Accord- 
ing to  Dittenberger  and   Purgold,  it  runs  Bvficov  Ti]Tepj]  ^epl    virepKe^aXd 

1  Iliad  xxiii.  826  ff. 

'-'  i.  1':."..  4  //•   xxiii.   431,   523  :  cp.    ii.    771: 

:;  Apollonius    Rhodius  iii.    1 :". 6 1 » ,    1372;    iv.  626;  viii.  129,  186;  xvii.  16S. 

«;."i7,    851  :     Nicander,     Ther.    905  ;    Nonnus,  ehr.  von  01                    ;  Jiithnei 

Dioni/s.    xxxvii.    667  ;    Quint.    Smyrnaeus   iv.  Turngerdthc,  p 

U.S. — VOL.    XXVII.  B 


pC  inrepefidXero  6  <J>o[A.]a.  Neither  vTrepefidXero  nor  vTreptcefyaXd  seems  very 
satisfactory,  and  Mr.  H.  B.  Walters  therefore  suggests  the  reading  virep- 
K€(f>a\a.<;  v-rrepefiaXe  to  o  icpopet,  '  he  threw  over  his  head  this  thing  that  he 
was  carrying.'  But  whatever  the  reading,  the  general  sense  is  clear,  and  the 
greater  difficulty  remains,  how  did  he  do  it  ?  The  stone  weighs  143^  kilos, 
and  measures  68  x  33  X  38  cms.  The  explanation  that  lie  merely  lifted  it 
over  his  head  6  does  not  help  matters  ;  a  one-handed  lift  of  an  object  of  such 
weight  and  shape  is  quite  as  incredible  as  the  throw.  I  can  only  suggest  that- 
Bybon  lifted  it  above  his  head  with  both  hands,  then  balanced  it  on  one  hand 
and  threw  it  backwards.  This  is  precisely  what  Aelian  describes  Titormus  as 
doing  with  a  stone  which  Milo  could  hardly  move.7  First  he  raises  it  as  far 
his  knees,  then  lifts  it  on  to  his  shoulders,  carries  it  eight  opyvias,  and  throws- 
it.  A  larger  block  of  black  volcanic  rock  weighing  480  kilos  has  been  dis- 
covered at  Santorin.  It  bears  the  following  inscription  of  about  500  B.C.  : 
EvfjbdaTas  p.'  dripev  dirb  %#oi>09  6  KpLToftovXov.8     To  lift  such  a  weight  off 

the  ground  is  a  good  performance,  but  quite  pos- 
sible. The  only  representation  I  know  of  such 
scenes  is  in  the  interior  of  a  r.-f.  kylix  in  the 
Louvre,  G.  96,  where  we  see  a  youth  lifting  in 
both  arms  a  large,  roundish  object,  apparently  a 
stone  (Fig.  1).  Lifting  feats  are  ascribed  to  Milo, 
Euthymus,  and  other  athletes,  and  the  heroes  in 
the  Iliad  hurl  in  battle  boulders  that  two  stalwart 
men  can  hardly  lift.1' 

The  Homeric  0-0X09,  like  the  stones  described 
above,  has  nothing  distinctly  athletic  about  it,  any 
more  than  our  word  '  weight.'  It  is  merely  a 
mass  of  iron,  and  its  athletic  use  is  a  mere  acci- 
dent. It  is  true  that,  like  other  objects,  especially 
metal  objects  or  weapons,  it  has  its  history.  It 
belonged  once  to  Eetion,  king  of  Thebes,  who 
used  to  hurl  it  too.  And  Achilles  after  slaying  Eetion  brought  it  to  Troy 
among  his  possessions.  But  the  author  is  far  more  concerned  with  its  com- 
mercial value:  'it  will  furnish  a  countryman  with  iron  for  five  years';  and 
we  may  feel  sure  that  it  found  its  place  in  Achilles's  ship  for  practical' 
purposes.  In  Apollonius  Rhodius  we  shall  find  the  0-0X09  always  mentioned 
on  the  sea  shore  near  the  ships.  A  pig  of  iron  would  serve  the  sailor  or 
soldier  in  many  ways. 

The  word  must  have  been  an  unusual  one,  and  certainly  puzzled  the 
scholiasts,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  numerous  notes  thereon.10  With  a  single 
exception  to  be  discussed  later,  these  notes,  as  well  as  the  passages  in  later 

Fig.  1.— R.-F.   Kylix. 
LouvitE,  G.  96. 

,;  Chryssaphis  Bulletin  tin  Comite"  ii:s  Jcux 
Olympiqucs,  1906,  p.  57. 
1   Far.  Hist.  xii.  22. 
8  1.0.  xiii.  No.  499. 
:'  Aelian,    op.   cit.  viii.    18;    Paus.    vi.    11  ; 

11.  v.  302;  xii.  415.  In  the  Odyssey  the- 
(  \i  lops  and  the  Laestrygones  hurl  rocks  at  the 
ships  of  Odysseus,  ix.  481,  537  ;  x.  121. 

10  Jiithner,   op.  cit.   pp.  20,  22,  collects  and 
discusses  the  scholia. 


authors  where  the  word  occurs,  contaiu  no  information  which  may  not  be 
derived  from  Homer.  The  word  is  said  to  have  been  found  inscribed  on  a 
bronze  diskos  discovered  early  in  the  last  century  in  the  bed  of  the  Alpheius,11 
but  without  further  information  the  evidence  is  worthless.  We  may  however 
probably  connect  the  word  with  the  names  of  various  places,  Soli  in  Cyprus, 
and  Cilicia,  and  Soloeis  in  Sicily  (and  Mauritania).  According  to  Lewy,  these 
names  are  cognate  to  the  Semitic  sola,  a  rock,  and  Victor  Bc'rard  explains  the 
name  as  due  in  all  these  cases  to  a  prominent  headland  or  hill  interrupting  a 
level  stretch  of  coast.12  The  etymology  is  supported  by  the  note  of  Hesy- 
chius,  ao\o<;  =  ovofxa  fiowov ;  and  it  certainly  suits  the  Homeric  croAo?,  the 
transition  from  a  boulder  to  a  mass  of  metal  being  easy.  Thus  in  Apollonius 
Rhodius  the  great  round  stone  which  Jason  hurls  into  the  midst  of  the 
dragon  brood  is  described  as 

Seivbv  'JLvvaXiov  aoXov  "Apeos  (iii.  1366), 

an  expression  which  recalls  the  boulders  thrown  by  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad  in 
war  rather  than  an  athletic  implement. 

But  whatever  the  original  meaning  of  the  word,  there  is  reason  for  think- 
ing that  it  was  from  an  early  date  appropriated  to  metal.  Hesychius  explains 
aokoLTviros  as  fiv8po/cTV7ro<;,  and  the  Soli  in  Cyprus  and  in  Cilicia  were  certainly 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  mines.  So  too  Apollouius  Rhodius  in  a  remarkable 
passage  uses  the  word  in  connection  with  the  Portus  Argous,  the  modern 
Porto  Ferraio  in  Elba,  the  very  name  of  which  implies  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  iron  mines  for  which  the  island  was  already  famous  in  classical  times. 
There  the  Argonauts  on  their  voyage  landed  and 

■^n]<f>2criv  d7ro)fi6p^avTO  Ka[x6vre<i 
Ihpoi  ci\i<;  •  XP0LV  ^  Kar'  alyiaXolo  Keyyvrat 
el'/ceXai  •  iv  Be  aoXoi  kcl\  rev^ea  decriceXa  Keivcov  (iv.  655). 

Commentators  and  translators,  following  the  scholiasts,  identify  the  aoXos  with 
a  sort  of  6l<tko<;,  and  describe  the  Argonauts  as  holding  athletic  sports  on  the 
shore  of  Aethalia,  and  then  going  through  their  ablutious  with  stones  for  strigils. 
The  pebbles  on  the  shore  have  a  flesh-like  appearance  in  consequence,  and  their 
discs  and  weapons  are  still  to  be  seen  there.13  Did  the  Greeks  never  scrape  off 
the  sweat  except  after  games  ?  Had  the  Argonauts  no  need  of  such  a  process 
after  their  endless  wanderings  and  sufferings  by  sea?  And  when  at  last  they 
did  find  a  resting-place,  did  they  at  once  fall  to  throwing  the  diskos  ?  The 
idea  is  preposterous,  and  but  for  the  traditional  explanation  <t6Xo<;  =  &i<tko<;  it 
would  never  have  been  mooted.  Why  then  are  aoXoi  mentioned  '.  Welther 
is  surely   right,  '  spectant  fortasse  ad  ferri  abundantiam.' 14      To  Apollonius 

11  CI.'!,  i.  1541.  As  rain,  ami  tlie  pebbles  an'  flecked  as  with 

i-  Lewy,                       Fremdicorter,    p.   115  ;  scarf-skin  strigil-stripped 

Berard,  L'OdyssA  et  '<■                    t,  i.  l>.  334.  To  this  day  ;  ami  their  quoits  and  wondrous 

13  Thus     in     the     latest     version     by     Mr.  armour  are  there,  all  stone. 

A.  S.  Way  :  14  2>c      Jy 

There  in  athlete-strife  'lid  they  supple  their  geographicis,  p.  96. 

limbs  till  tin-  sweat  <>t  them  dripped 

n  -1 


Aethalia  would  at  once  suggest  the  pigs  of  iron  exported  from  the  island  and 
the  mainland  opposite  ;  and  what  objects  could  be  more  natural  on  board  a  ship, 
whether  they  served  for  commerce,  for  ballast,  for  shipbuilding,  or  for  weapons  ? 
Apollonins  is  surely  thinking  of  the  0-0X09  avroxocovo^  in  its  commercial 
rather  than  its  athletic  aspect. 

However,  as  we  have  seen,  the  <to\o<;  did  take  the  place  of  the  diskos  in 
the  sports  of  the  Iliad,  and  so  the  scholiasts  interpret  it.  In  the  third  and  last 
passage  where  Apollonius  uses  the  word  he  describes  Thetis  coming  to  Aeaea, 
where  she  finds  the  Argonauts  beguiling  the  time, 

croXft)  pcTrjjcn  r   oLcrrodv  (iv.  851), 


The  line  is  an  elaborate,  archaistic  variation  of  the  Homeric 
hicncoiGLv  repirovTO  /cal  alyavejjai  teVre?.10 

The  verse  may  seem  to  tell  against  my  interpretation  of  the  previous 
passage,  but  in  the  case  of  a  student  and  archaeologist  like  Apollonius  it  is  not 
unnatural  that  he  should  use  the  same  word  in  two  different  senses,  especially 
when  both  senses  can  be  justified  from  Homer.  Even  here  the  ao\o<;  may 
just  as  well  be  the  weight  as  the  diskos.  Nicander,  however,  in  his  Thcriaca  does 
use  the  word  for  a  diskos.  It  is  with  a  crokos  rebounding  from  a  rock,  he 
says,  that  Apollo  killed  Hyacinthus.16  Quintus  Smyrnaeus  and  Nonnus 
merely  imitate  and  elaborate  the  passage  Jn  the  Homeric  sports,  and  their 
evidence  is  worthless. 

The  scholiasts  are  much  exercised  in  distinguishing  the  diskos  and  the 
solos,  and  their  artificial  descriptions  still  find  a  place  in  our  commentaries 
and  dictionaries.17  The  diskos  is  flat,  the  solos  round  and  ball-shaped ;  the 
diskos  of  stone,  the  solos  of  metal :  the  diskos  has  a  hole  in  it  and  a  string 
to  throw  it  with,  the  solos  is  solid.  The  first  distinction  is  fairly  accurate ; 
the  diskos  was  flat,  the  solos  a  mass,  more  or  less  round.  As  to  material,  the 
diskos  we  know  was  made  both  in  stone  and  in  metal,  and  probably  the  solos 
could  be  either.  The  third  and  last  distinction  is  ascribed  to  Tryphon,  but 
another  version  ascribed  to  Eratosthenes  assigns  the  hole  and  string  to  the 
solos,  not  to  the  diskos. 1S  That  they  belonged  to  the  solos  is  disproved  by 
every  passage  in  which  the  word  is  used  ;  that  they  belonged  to  the  diskos  is 
still  more  conclusively  disproved  by  the  monuments ;  and  Dr.  Jiithner  there- 
fore rightly  rejects  the  evidence  of  the  scholiasts.  But  his  idea  that  the 
scholiasts  invented  the  hole  and  string  theory  to  explain  the  term  irepLarpe^a^ 
is  hardly  satisfactory.  The  athletic  craze  had  spread  to  Alexandria  before  the 
time  of  Eratosthenes,   so  much  so  that  few  places  produced  such  an  array 

15  //.  ii.  774  =  0d.  iv.  626;  xvii.  168.  Vdi/smj   viii.   190    Schol.    HHQT.      6  5<Wos 

16  T/icr.  90.r<.  \l6os  -i)v.       koX   :Eparoadtvris    iv    'OXvuTrioviKats 

17  Jiithner,    op,    cit.    pp.    19  ff.,   collects   and  luToptl  rbv  /uiv  ooKov  \iyaiv  (Tidrjpovv  J)  ^vKivov 
discusses  the  scholia  at  length.  v)  xa^K0^v  r€Tp7jfj.tvov  Kara  rb  fxeoov  iced  txo"Ta 

18  Amnion.     40     SlffKOS    juiv     yi.p    tort    XlOos  KaAiiSiov    i^-r)!.Lixivnv,    ou    exoM-evoi   fiaWovaiv    ol 
TfTpyfxtvos    lis    (prjfft    Tpvcpoov     iv     Ttiix-mq     irepl  ayoovt£u/j.tioi. 

EAArji'i(7/uoC,  coAoj  be  rh  ^oA/coCi'  6\o(T(f>vptov. 


of  Olympic  victors,19  and  we  could  bardly  credit  Eratosthenes  with  such 
a  blunder.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  he  is  speaking  of  Rome  popular  game 
in  which  a  round  object  was  bowled  along  by  means  of  a  cOrd.20  Mr.  R.  M. 
Uawkins  tells  me  he  has  seen  such  a  game  at  Orvieto,  round  stones  about  a 
foot  in  diameter  being  bowled  along  the  sloping  road,  much  to  the  danger  of 
pedestrians,  by  means  of  a  strap  wound  round  their  periphery.  Cheeses  are 
said  to  be  thus  employed  in  parts  of  Italy,  and  to  be  much  improved  by  the 
treatment.  A  more  probable  explanation,  however,  is  suggested  to  me  by 
Mr.  J.  L.  Myres.  The  scholia  of  Iliad  xxiii.,  he  says,  have  become 
dislocated,  and  the  string  and  hole  belong  not  to  the  solos,  but  to  the 
Ka\avpo\jr  mentioned  a  few  lines  further  on.  Polypoetes  hurls  the  solos 
'  as  far  as  an  oxherd  throws  a  fcaXavpoyp-.'  This  word,  which  is  usually 
explained  somewhat  pointlessly  as  'a  staff,'  is  really,  says  Mr.  Myres,  a  sort  of 
bolas,  a  weapon  consisting  of  a  string  with  one  or  more  stones  attached  to  it, 
which  is  used  in  Spanish  America  for  throwing  at  and  catching  cattle.  Mr. 
Myres  tells  me  that  he  has  often  seen  Greek  boys  extemporising  a  sort  of 
bolas  with  a  string  and  perforated  stone.  This  explanation  not  only  suits 
the  passage  in  Homer  far  better  than  the  traditional  one  of  the  text,  but  also 
offers  a  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the  mistake  about  the  solos  and  diskos. 
From  this  passage  the  mistake  would  easily  be  copied  elsewhere. 

To  sum  up,  aoXos  is  a  heavy  weight,  originally  perhaps  a  boulder, 
afterwards  a  mass  of  metal,  and  in  late  writers  it  is  occasionally  used  as 
a  synonym  for  diskos. 

B.—  The  Diskos. 

The  word  diskos  means  '  a  thing  thrown ' ;  originally  any  stone  of 
convenient  shape  and  size,  then  a  stone  artificially  shaped  for  throwing,  lastly 
a  similar  object  in  metal.  In  Homer  the  diskos  is  still  a  stone  :  how  far  it  is 
artificial  we  cannot  say,  but  in  one  passage  at  least  it  seems  to  be  used  of  the 
round,  smooth  stones  that  are  found  on  the  sea-shore.  Odysseus,  challenged 
by  the  Phaeacians,  picked  up  a  diskos  '  larger  than  the  rest,  a  thick  one.  far 
more  massive  than  those  wherewith  the  Phaeacians  contended  in  casting.'-1 
The  scene  is  the  agora  of  the  Phaeacians  hard  by  the  ships,  and  the  sports 
are  of  that  impromptu,  after-dinner  sort  that  needs  no  apparatus.  The 
Phaeacians,  as  Alcinous  admits,  are  no  trained  athletes,  but  '  swift  of  foot  and 
the  best  of  seamen.'  In  the  palaestra  of  the  fifth  century  one  would  expect 
to  find  diskoi  of  various  weights,  like  the  dumb-bells  of  a  modern  gymnasium, 
bul  surely  not  in  the  agora  of  the  Phaeacians;  yet  Odysseus  finds  at  one-'  a 
diskos  such'  as  the  Phaeacians  themselves  never  use.  If  we  think  of  the 
diskos  merely  as  a  stone,  the  difficulty  vanishes.  The  agora  is  hard  by  the 
ships,  and  on  the  shore  are  diskoi  ready  to  hand  of  all  sizes,  flat,  smooth, 
round  pebbles  such  as  fishermen  use  as  weights  for  holding  down  their  nets 
and  sails  laid  out  to  dry,  and  such  as  every  visitor   to  the   seaside  inevitably 

19  Krause  Gymnaslilc,  p.  800.  •"  Kietz  Diakoswurf,  p.  -Jl  -1  Od.  viii.  1S6  ft'. 


picks  up  to  throw.     From  such  a  stone  to  the  manufactured  stone  diskos  the 
transition  is  easy,  and  the  recurrence  of  the  phrase 

Stcr/coHTiv  Tepirovro  kol  aiyaveycn  levres,2'2 
together  with  the  use  of  the  term  Sio-tcovpa  as  a  measure  of  distance,  makes 
it  probable  that  the  manufactured  diskos  was  known  at  all  events  in  the 
later  Homeric  times.  It  is  sometimes  stated,  on  the  evidence  of  the  epithet 
KarcofjuaBioio,23  that  the  Homeric  heroes  put  the  diskos  as  we  put  the  weight. 
It  is  possible,  of  course,  but  the  evidence  is  insufficient;  Karoo p,d8io<i  would 
be  at  least  equally  applicable  to  Myron's  diskobolos,  and  the  use  of  the  terms 
Sivrjaas  and  7repLaTpe\jra(;  proves  that,  whether  they  put  the  weight  or  not, 
the  Homeric  heroes  sometimes  slung  the  weight. 

In  Pindar  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  diskos  is  an  athletic  imple- 
ment ;  and  though  he  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  bronze  diskos,  he 
makes  his  heroes  Nikeus  and  Castor  throw  the  older  stone  diskos.24  The 
latter  is  clearly  represented  on  certain  black  figured  vases  as  a  thick,  white 
object25  (PI.  I.),  but  the  evidence  of  the  vases  and  of  the  actual  diskoi  which 
we  possess  shows  that  the  bronze  diskos  must  have  been  introduced  before 
the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 

There  exist  in  our  museums  various  inscribed  and  carved  marble  diskoi.20 
But  though  in  size  and  shape  they  differ  little  from  the  bronze  specimens, 
they  are  too  fragile  and  thin  for  actual  use,  and  their  inscriptions  prove 
clearly  that  they  are  merely  votive  offerings.  The  practice  of  inscribing  and 
dedicating  diskoi  was  an  ancient  one,  as  we  may  see  from  the  diskos  of 
Iphitus  dedicated  at  Olympia.  With  regard  to  the  metal  diskos  we  are  more 
fortunate.  Of  the  specimens  which  we  possess,  four  are  probably  votive 
offerings,  but  one  of  these  certainly,  possibly  three,  had  also  been  used ;  the 
rest  were  certainly  intended  for  use.  Most  are  of  hammered  bronze:  four  of 
cast  bronze,  one  of  lead.  Their  weights  and  measurements  can  be  best 
seen  from  the  following  table  : — 

Finding  place. 


Weight  in 


in  cms. 

in  mms. 

1.   Olympia 

Olympia,  Inv.  7567 




2.  Corfu 

B.  M.  2691 




3.   Gela 





4.  Amyclae 

Athens,  De  Ridder,  Cat.  530 



5.   Olympia 

Olympia,  Inv.  4257 

2-945  (?) 



6.   Olympia 

Olympia,  Inv.  12892 





Rome,  Museo  Kireheriano 


21,  21  -5 

8.  Olympia 

Olympia,  Inv.  2859 


19,  22  5 

3  at  edge 

9.   Sicily 

B.M.  248 




10.  Olympia 


2  023 



11.  Aegina 




12.  Olympia 





13.   Olympia 

Berlin,  Inv.  2286 

1-353  (?) 



14.   Olympia 

Olympia,  Inv.  12891 




15.  Cephallenia 

B.M.  3207 




22  Ocl.  iv.  626,  xvii.  168  ;  //.  ii.  774. 

23  //.  xxiii.  431. 

24  01.  x.  72  wirpy  ;  Istlim.  i.  23  \i0lvois  S'ktkois. 
23  B.M.    Fuses,   B.   134,  142,    271  ;    Athens 

Nat.  Mas.  832  ;  Munich  408  ;  Berlin  Vas.  1727. 
28  Cambridge,  Fitzwilliam  Museum,  70,  72  ; 
Kavvadias,     VKvirra    rod    'EQvikov    Mover.     93 ; 
Salzmann  N6cro})ole  de  Camiros,  PI.  VIII. 


No.  I27  is  of  cast  bronze,  ornamented  with  concentric  circles,  and  bear- 
ing on  one  side  a  dedication  by  Poplius,  a  pentathlete  of  Corinth,  to  Olympian 
.Zens,  on  the  other  the  name  of  the  alytarch,  with  the  dates  respectively 
Ol.  255,  456.  The  difference  in  the  date  is  possibly  due  to  different  methods 
of  reckoning  the  Olympiads.  The  style  and  weight  make  it  improbable  that 
it  was  ever  intended  for  actual  use;  if  it  was  so,  it  is  an  illustration  of  the 
degeneracy  of  athletics  and  the  worship  of  brute  strength  which  we  see  also 
in  the  development  of  the  heavy  caestus. 

No.  328  also  of  cast  bronze  had  originally  an  inlaid  dolphin,  possibly  of 
silver,  which  would  have  added  slightly  to  its  weight. 

No.  4  is  of  a  somewhat  scyphate  shape. 

No.  5  is  fragmentary.  The  weight  is  calculated  from  the  diameter  and 
thickness,  assuming  the  surface  to  be  spherical  and  the  specific  gravity  thai  ol 
copper.  If  we  make  allowance  for  the  slightly  smaller  specific  gravity  of 
bronze  and  for  the  weathering  of  No.  6,  the  weights  of  the  two  will  be 
approximately  equal. 

No.  6.  The  weights  of  the  Olympia  diskoi  are  only  approximate.  They 
were  weighed,  Mr.  Bosanquet  tells  me,  in  the  village  shop. 

No.  7  is  of  markedly  scyphate  shape. 

No.  9  and  No.  II29  are  of  cast  bronze  and  engraved  on  the  one  side 
with  the  figure  of  a  jumper,  on  the  other  with  that  of  a  spear  thrower.50 
No.  11  is  also  ornamented  with  a  series  of  concentric  circles.  They  belong 
to  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  but  though  they  approximate  closely  in 
weight  and  size  to  Nos.  8  and  10,  their  flatness  and  the  sharpness  of  their 
•edges  make  me  doubtful  whether  they  were  intended  for  actual  use. 

No.  12  is  of  lead,  and  has  probably  lost  considerably  in  weight. 

No.  13  is  imperfect.  Three  pieces  are  broken  away  from  the  edge.  It 
must  have  weighed  1*5  at  least,  perhaps  considerably  more.31 

No.  15  is  also  very  badly  worn,  and  must  have  been  much  heavier.  It  is 
inscribed  with  two  hexameters  in  archaic  letters  of  the  sixth  century. 

'E%cro/8a(9)  fx!  aveOrjKe  Atfo?  Qo(v)poiv  fxeyaXoto 
XaX/ceov  a>  vt/cacre  Ke(f)aA(\)ava<;  fieyadv/xuv^.'1 

In  the  last  Olympic  games  a  wooden  diskos  with  a  metal  centre  was 
used.  It  is  a  thick  clumsy  object,  the  product  of  modern  imagination, 
utterly  unlike  and  in  every  way  inferior  to  the  specimens  which  we  have  in 
our  museums.     There  is  no  authority  for  it  whatsoever. 

Is  it  possible  from  these  data  to  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusions  as  to  the 
weights  actually  used  in  competitions  ?  The  diskoi  are  all  more  or  less  worn, 
and  the  weights  are  therefore  only  approximate.     They  seem,  however,  to  fall 

'-'"  Olympia  iv.  179  ;  Jiithner  op.  cit.  p.  28.  concern  us  at  present  :  I  hope  to  ileal  with  it  in 

38  Jahreshefte  ii.  p.  201,  PL  I.  another  article. 

-9  Jiithner  op.  cit,  pp.  27,  "28.  "   For  particulars  oi  these  two  1  am  indehted 

3n  The  figure  on  the  B.M.  diskos  is  described  to  Dr.  Zahn,  from  whom  I  received  a  di awing 

in    the    Catalogue   as   an    athlete    holding    a  of  No.  12. 
measuring  cord.     The  interpretation  does  not  B.M.  i  207. 


into  certain  groups.  The  best  marked  group  is  composed  of  Nos.  8 — 11,  and 
possibly  12  if  Ave  make  allowance  for  the  greater  softness  of  lead.  It  suggests 
a  standard  of  2*1.  Heavier  standards  are  suggested  by  Nos.  2  and  3,  and  by 
Nos.  4  and  5,  say  4*0  and  2*8,  while  Nos.  14,  15  point  to  a  standard  of  1-3. 
Mr.  Bosanquet,  to  whose  kindness  I  am  indebted  for  most  of  the  data  given 
above,  suggests  that  these  different  standards  correspond  to  the  different  ages 
of  the  competitors,  but  it  is  not  safe  to  go  beyond  the  general  suggestion.  We 
know  that  in  the  treasury  of  the  Sicyonians  at  Olympia  three  diskoi  were  kept 
for  the  use  of  competitors  in  the  pentathlon,  and  we  know  that  there  were  two 
classes  of  competitors,  boys  and  men,  and  that  the  boys  used  a  smaller  diskos 
than  the  men.33  But  we  do  not  know  that  the  standard  at  Olympia  was  the 
same  as  that  adopted  elsewhere,  or  that  the  diskoi  which  we  possess  were 
intended  for  competition.  Rather  we  know  that  the  metrical  standards  varied 
considerably  in  different  parts  of  the  Greek  world,  and  also  that  there 
were  different  classifications  of  age  at  different  festivals.31  If  then  we  are  to- 
arrive  at  any  definite  conclusion,  we  must  confine  ourselves  to  the  Olympian 
diskoi,  and  here  the  most  that  we  can  say  is  that  Nos.  5  and  6  point  to  a 
standard  of  about  2*8,  Nos.  8  and  10  to  one  of  about  21,  which  is  confirmed 
by  Nos.  9  and  11  and  perhaps  12. 

Nor  do  the  written  records  enable  us  to  say  for  certain  what  was  the 
standard  weight  used  by  men.  Phayllus  is  said  to  have  thrown  the  diskos 
ninety-five  feet  and  Philostratus  speaks  of  the  hero  Protesilaus  throwing 
beyond  a  hundred  cubits,  and  that  with  a  diskos  twice  the  size  of  the 
Olympian  one.35  Statins,30  again,  describes  Phlegyas  as  hurling  the  diskos 
across  the  Alpheius  at  its  widest,37  Little  credit  can  be  attached  to  these 
records,  but  as  far  as  they  go  they  agree  with  the  one  fact  emphasized  by 
writers,  that  the  diskos  was  a  heavy  object.38  In  view  of  this  and  of  the 
existing  diskoi,  it  seems  probable  that  the  men's  diskos  was  usually  con- 
siderably heavier  than  2  kilos ;  usually,  but  not  always,  for  the  lightest  diskos 
in  the  list  is  that  with  which  Exoidas  defeated  the  high-souled  Cephallenians. 
The  dimensions  of  the  diskos  in  art  correspond  with  those  given  in  our 
table.  On  the  vases  too  the  diskos  is  often  ornamented  with  concentric 
circles,  as  in  Nos.  1  and  11,  with  various  forms  of  crosses  and  dots,  or  with 
the  figures  of  birds  or  animals.39  When  not  in  use  the  diskos  was  kept 
in  a  sort  of  sling,  the  two  ends  of  which  were  tied  in  a  knot.  In  such  a 
sling  the  diskos  is  frequently  represented  hanging  on  the  wall  or  carried  in 
the  hands  of  a  youth.40 

33  Pausanias  vi.  19,  3  ;  i.  35,  3.  free   style  136  ft.     The   free  style  is  possibly 

34  e.g.  at  the  Panathenaea,  Nemea,  and  more  effective,  the  modern  Greek  style  certainly 
Isthmia,  7raT5es,  ayiveioi,  &vdp«s.  Elsewhere  we  less  so  than  that  employed  by  the  ancient 
have    four  or   even   five  classes,    C'.I.G.    1590,  Greeks. 

2214  ;  l.G.  ii.  444.  38  Lucian  Anach.   27.     Galen  de  red.  luenda 

35  Heroic,  p.  291.  ii.  9-11,  iii.  Homer,  Statius  loc.  cit. 

36  Thcb.  vi.  675.  39  Juthner  op.  cit.  p.  29. 

37  In  the  last  Olympic  games  a  diskos  of  40  ib.  p.  30.  E.g.  B.M.  Vases  E  78  ;  vol. 
2  kilos  was    used.     The  winner  in  the   Greek       xxvi.  of  this  journal,  PI.  xiii. 

style  threw  it  115  ft.  4  in.,  the  winner  in  the 


G.—The  Balbis. 

The  diskos,  according  to  Philostratus,  was  thrown  from   a  fiaXfik,  our 
knowledge  of  which  is  derived  entirely  from  an  extremely  difficult  passage 
describing  the  picture  of  the  death  of  Hyacinthus.41     f3a\f3k  BiaKex^pio-rat 
/xiKpa  /cal  diroxpoxra  ivl    earom  el  firj  to  Karomv  /cal  to  Begibv  afceXos  dve- 
yovaa  irpavi)   ra   efxirpoadev  /cal  Kovfyi^ovcra  Odrepov  rolv  atce\oLi>  o  XP*I  avv' 
ava(3d\\e<r6at  /cal  av/xiropeveadai  rr,  Begin,  to  Be  axv^a  T™  ^aKov  dvexovros 
egaXkdgavra  rr)v  KefyaX^v  eirl  Beg  id  XPV  icvpTOvadai  Toaovrov,  oaov  viro&Xe 
yfrai  rd  irXevpa  /cal  piirreiv  olov  dvtp,wvra  /cal  irpoo-ep,/3dXXovra  toU  BegioU 
irdai.     As    Benndorf  rightly  says,  '  omnia  dependent  a  Myronis   discobolo,' 
the  last  sentence  being  a  singularly  happy  description  of  the  statue  with  the 
ropelike  pull  of  the  right  arm  and  the  concentrated  effort  of  all  the  right 
side  of  the  body.     The  first  sentence  is  more  difficult.     '  A  balbis  is  marked 
off  small  and  sufficient  for  one  man  standing  el  fiy  to  Karoinv,  and  support- 
ing the  right  leg,  the  front  part  of  the  body  leaning  forward  while  it  lightly 
supports  the  other  leg,  which  is  to  be  swung  forward  and  follow  through  with 
the  right  hand.'     This  is   the  rendering  given  by  Jiithner  in  an  elaborate 
discussion  of  this  passage  in  Eranos  Vindob.,  p.  317,  and  is  manifestly  superior 
to   Benndorf's   version    in    his  edition  of  the  Imagines.     Jiithner,  after  an 
exhaustive  examination  of  the -uses  of  fiaXfih,  proceeds  to  identify  the  /3a\/3t? 
of  Philostratus   with   the  stone  slabs  with  which  we   are  familiar  from  the 
stadia  of  Olympia,  Delphi,  and  other  places.     It  is  indeed  highly  probable, 
though  at  present  there  is  no  proof  thereof,  that  the  pentathlete  did  throw  the 
diskos  and  the  spear  from  the  same  line  of  slabs  from  which  the  races  started. 
But  when  Dr.  Jiithner,  assuming  that  the  /9aX/3t?  of  Philostratus  is  identical 
in  size  with  these  slabs,  uses  this  assumption  to  explain   the  words  el  fir)  to 
/caroinv  as  due  to  the  narrowness  of  the  slabs,  which  only  afforded  room  for 
the  right  foot  and  not  for  the  left  foot  behind,  it  is  impossible  to  follow  him  ; 
and,  to  do  him  justice,  we  must  admit  that  he  is  not  satisfied  himself.42     '  Ich 
gestehe  dass  diese  Erkliirung  nicht  ganz  uberzeugend  klingt.'     As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  starting  slabs  are  amply  sufficient  for  one  man  to  stand  on,  though 
possibly  not  in  the  position  of  Myron's  diskobolos;  but  if  we  think  out  the 
expression,  what  possible  sense  is  there  in  '  a  space  small  and  sufficient  for  one 
man  except  behind  '  ?  It  is  absolutely  unthinkable,  and  we  must  either  abandon 
the  passage  as  hopeless  or  find  some  other  interpretation.     The  absurdity  to 
which    we   are  reduced  suggests  the  solution.     A  parallelogram    cannot    be 
sufficient  for  one  man  '  except  behind';  therefore   the  words  qualify   some- 

41  Im.  i.  24  (Benndorf  and  Schenkl).     The  authority,  and,  being  the  rarer  word,  is  more 

earlier  text  of  iKayser  reads  SiaKix*^""    f°r  likely  to  have  been  changed.     The  word  is  30 

5iok€x^P'°'to'>  *J  ^  for  Kal  rf,  ffwavawaWtaOat  wonderfully  appropriate  and  lifelike, 

for  (Twava&oiXKtcTeai,  and  inserts  ipyAfaat  after  u  His    reference  of    5ia«€x^P"rTai    t0    'ke 

rit  i^poadtv.     Benndorfs  text  is  undoubtedly  two   grooves    on   the    starting   slabs    is    quite 

superior;     but     I     regret     the    alteration    of  pointless. 
(TuvavcnraMtodai.  which  has  considerable   MSS. 


thing  else  ;  they  can  only  qualify  8iatce)(a>pi<TTai.  The  meaning  is  clear  at 
once.  The  /3a\/3i9  is  marked  off — small  and  sufficient  for  one  man — it  is 
marked  off  except  behind.  That  the  competitor  must  not  overstep  the  line 
in  front  is  an  elementary  principle  of  all  such  competitions.  In  the  present 
day  the  hammer  thrower  or  weight  putter  is  confined  to  a  square  or  circle. 
The  conditions  for  the  diskos  thrower  were  not  so  severe  ;  the  balbis  was 
marked  off  sideways  but  not  behind,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  method  of  throw- 
ing implied  in  the  diskobolos  of  M/yron  requires  room  for  at  least  one  step 
forward.  As  I  have  said,  it  seems  probable  a  priori  that  the  starting  slabs 
should  have  been  used  for  throwing  the  diskos  and  the  spear.  At  the  same 
time,  in  the  Delphi  inscription  describing  the  preparations  for  the  Pythian 
games  we  find  mention  of  rap,  irapa  rots  7T€VTd0\oLs,  the  contract  for  which 
was  eight  staters.43  As  special  contracts  are  named  for  the  running  track,  the 
jumps,  and  the  boxing  ring  (which  would  naturally  serve  also  for  wrestling 
and  the  pankration),  the  arrangements  for  the  pentathlon  would  seem  to  refer 
to  the  diskos  and  the  spear,  i.e.  the  /3aA,/3/?  and  the  means  for  measuring  the 
throw,  and  these  arrangements  seem  therefore  to  be  distinct  from  the  starting 
arrangements  for  the  races. 

Kietz's  theory  of  the  /3aX/3/?  as  a  small  platform  sloping  downwards  has 
been  conclusively  disproved  by  Jtithner,  and  need  hardly  have  been  noticed 
had  it  not  been  -adopted  by  the  Greek  authorities  in  the  recent  Olympic  games. 
According  to  their  wonderful  regulations,  the  platform  is  80  cm.  long  by  70  cm. 
wide,  with  a  height  of  not  more  than  15  cm.  behind  and  not  less  than  5  cm.  in 
front.  This  extraordinary  arrangement  is  based  solely  and  entirely  on  the  old, 
•corrupt  reading  of  the  obscure  passage  in  Philostratus  quoted  above.  Even 
if  the  old  text  was  correct,  its  evidence  would  be  absolutely  worthless  in  face 
of  the  manifest  absurdity  of  the  idea,  and  the  fact  that  in  all  the  numerous 
statues,  bronzes,  vases,  and  gems  representing  the  diskobolos  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  such  a  platform.  Can  we  imagine  Myron's  diskobolos  tilted 
forwards  ?  Were  it  so,  there  would  indeed  be  some  excuse  for  Herbert 
Spencer's  criticism  that  he  is  about  to  fall  on  his  face  !  Even  the  scanty 
literary  evidence  is  conclusive  against  this  arrangement.  Lucian,  Philo- 
stratus, and  Statius  all  emphasize  the  follow  through  of  the  diskobolos.  As 
the  diskos  swings  down  the  left  leg  must  inevitably  be  advanced,  and  a 
platform  which  prevents  such  a  movement  not  only  renders  a  good  throw 
impossible,  but,  being  fatal  to  all  freedom  and  grace  of  action,  is  absolutely 

The  throw  was  measured  from  the  front  line  of  the  /3a\/^i9  to  the  place 
where  the  diskos  fell.  That  the  competitor  might  not  overstep  the  line  in 
throwing  the  diskos  or  the  javelin  is  obvious,  and  in  the  case  of  the  latter  is 
clearly  implied  by  Pindar's  expression  //,?;  repp,a  7rpo/3a<?,4f'  words  which  could 
never  have  been  misinterpreted  by  anyone  with  even  a  superficial  knowledge 

43  B.C. II.    1899,  p.  566,  1.  32.  especially  Mr.  G.  S.  Robertson. 

44  In    my   criticism    of    the    modern    Greek  4B  Eustathius  ad  Horn.  Od.  viii.  202    p.  1591, 
style  I  rely  on  the  photographs  in  Chryssaphis's       42  ;  Nem.  vii.  70. 

article  and  on  descriptions  from  eye-witnesses, 

THliO\V1N(.i    TlIK    DISKOS.  11 

of  athletics,  except  to  defend  some  a  'priori  theory.  This  line,  like  the 
jumper's  ftarrfp.  is  possibly  indicated  on  certain  vases  by  spears  stuck  in  the 
ground40  (PI.  II.).  The  place  where  the  diskos  fell  was  marked  by  a  peg  or 
arrow,  as  described  by  Statius,  and  on  several  vases  we  see  a  diskobolos 
putting  down  or  pulling  up  such  a  mark.17     (Fig.  2.) 

In  the  modern  free  style  the  diskos  is  thrown  from  a  circular  area 
2£  metres  in  diameter,  and  the  method  of  throwing  it  is  a  modification  of  that 
of  throwing  the  hammer,  the  thrower's  body  making  either  two  or  three 
complete  turns.     Of  such  a  method  there  is  no  trace  in  ancient  times,  and. 

Fig.  •!.—  K.-F.   Kylikes.     (After  Jiithner,  Fi 

effective  as  it  undoubtedly  is,  we   may  doubt   if   it   would  ever   have   been 
invented  but  for  the  experience  acquired  in  hammer-throwing. 

D. — The  Method  of  Throwing  the  Diskos.     The  Evidei 

It  would  be  tedious  and  unprofitable  to  describe  and  criticize  the  various 
schemes  elaborated  by  scholars  for  throwing  the  diskos.  No  branch  of 
Greek  athletics  has  been  treated  at  greater  length  or  with  less  regard  to 
practice  and  unfortunately  the  scheme  established  by  the  Greek  authorities 
in  the  recent  Olympic  games  is  no  exception.  As  the  detects  in  these 
schemes  are  largely  due  to  a  misappreciation  of  the  value  of  the  different 
classes  of  evidence,  it  may  be  useful  briefly  to  review  the  evidence. 

(1)  Literary. 

The  literary  evidence  is  of  the  scantiest,  and  practically  useless  except 
as  confirming  the  evidence  of  the  monuments.  Besides  the  passage  in 
Philostratus  discussed  above,  we  have  a  few  scattered  allusions  in  Lucian  and 
a  lengthy  description  in  Statius  of  a  type  common  in  later  epics.48  In  the 
latter  the  heroic  character  of  the  contest  is  marked  by  the  vast  weight  of  the 

4l!  li.M.    Vases   B  574  ;    Krause  Qymn,   xiv.  Athenienne,  f.  23  ;  Pottier  Louvre  9,  73. 
A9  :  bpi  J.IT.S.  xxiv.  p.  186.  u  Lucian   Philopseud.    18;    Anachars.    27  ; 

'"  Jiithner  op.  cit.  p.  32,   Figs.  26,  27  :  Coll.  Dialog.  Bear.  xiv.  2  :  Statius  Theb.  \ 
',    Paris,    L879,    79  ;  Giranl    U Education 


diskos.  There  are  various  archaeological  details  with  which  we  are  familiar 
from  other  sources,  but  of  the  actual  throw  we  learn  nothing  which  we  could 
not  learn  from  Myron's  statue.  The  description  of  Hippomedon  throwing 
the  diskos  over  his  head  into  the  air  as  a  preliminary  show  off  has  indeed 
suggested  to  M.  Girard  the  delightful  theory  that  the  Greeks  practised  not 
only  'le  lancement  en  longueur'  but  'le  lancement  en  haut.' 49  One  wonders 
how  they  contrived  to  measure  the  height !  Jlithner,  again,  depends 
chiefly  on  various  poetical  expressions  for  his  wonderful  theory  of  the 
Kreisschwung.50  a  method  of  throwing  the  diskos  by  whirling  the  arm  round 
as  when  one  jerks  a  cricket  ball,  a  feat  highly  dangerous  to  performer  and 
spectators,  but  hardly  likely  to  break  records.  He  is  surprised  that  a  method 
so  frequently  alluded  to  in  literature  finds  such  scanty  support  in  the 
monuments  !  Lastly,  it  is  on  the  strength  of  the  passage  in  Philostratus  and 
of  Myron's  statue  that  the  Greeks  have  derived  rj  'EWrjvcK))  Sia/co/3o\ca, 
arguing  that  because  Myron's  diskobolos  has  his  right  foot  forward,  the  right 
foot  must  be  kept  forward  till  the  completion  of  the  throw,  and  regard- 
less of  the  fact  that  even  the  literary  evidence  proves  that  the  left  foot 
was  advanced  as  the  diskos  swung  down.  Such  theories  are  highly  creditable 
to  the  imagination  of  the  authors,  and  prove  conclusively  the  inadequacy  of 
the  literary  evidence. 

(2)  Monumental. 

Fortunately,  the  evidence  of  the  monuments  is  exceptionally  rich  and 
varied.  The  two  statues,  Myron's  Diskobolos  (Fig.  18)  and  the  Standing 
Diskobolos  (Figs.  13),  often  assigned  to  Naucydes,  are  of  first-rate  importance, 
such  works  being  independent  of  the  accidents  which  affect  the  types  in  the 
lesser  arts.  Besides  these  we  have  a  multitude  of  vases,  bronzes,  gems,  and 
coins  representing  this  subject.  Their  evidence  is  of  very  different  value. 
Bronzes  often  form  part  of  candelabra  or  serve  as  handles  of  vessels,  and  the 
figure  is  therefore  modified  by  practical  considerations.  The  vase  painter  is 
influenced  by  laws  of  composition  or  by  the  shape  of  the  vase  space,  especially 
in  the  interior  of  kylikes.  The  same  cause  operates  still  more  strongly  in 
the  case  of  gems  and  coins,  as  we  may  see  by  comparing  the  copies  thereon  of 
Myron's  statue  with  the  original.51  Hence,  when  we  come  to  classifying  the 
types  in  these  objects,  we  find  apparent  divergence,  often  due  not  to  difference 
in  motive,  but  to  differences  of  material  or  space,  or  to  the  age  and  style  of 
the  artists.  The  classification  is  important,  because  the  constant  repetition  of 
any  motive  is  fair  evidence  that  the  attitude  represented  is  typical  of  the 
performance.  Again,  not  only  does  the  style  of  the  artist  vary;  that  of  the 
diskobolos  himself  must  have  varied  equally.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the 
ancient  Greek  athletes  should  have  been  compelled  slavishly  to  imitate  the 
style  of  a  particular  performer,  or  even  of  a  statue.  The  swing  of  the  diskos 
must  have  varied  with  individual  performers  as  much  as  the  swing  of  the  golf 

w  op.  cit.  p.  202.  51  Furtwangler  Antik.  Ganmcn  xliv.  26,  27. 

•'"  Op.  cit.  p.  32. 



club,  and  we  may  naturally  expect  to  see  these  differences  of  style  reflected 
in  art.  It  has  been  necessary  to  dwell  on  these  causes  of  divergence,  because 
of  the  tendency  of  archaeologists  to  force  every  attitude  represented  into  one 
series  of  movements.  It  is  as  though  someone  utterly  ignorant  of  golf  were 
to  try  to  reconstruct  a  single  swing  out  of  a  miscellaneous  collection  of  photo- 
graphs or  drawings  of  various  golfers  playing  various  shots  and  a  few  medals 
or  prizes  bearing  conventional  representations  of  the  game.  At  the  same 
time,  though  we  must  expect  to  find  variety  in  style,  \v<-  shall  find,  I  believe, 
that  the  general  principle  of  the  throw  is  always  the  same. 

E. — Typical  Positions. 

The  scheme  generally  accepted  in  England  till  recently  is  based  on  the 
two  statues.     It  distinguishes  three  stages  : 

(1)  The  thrower  takes  up  the  position  of  the  Standing  Diskobolos,  right 
foot  in  front,  the  diskos  in  his  left  hand  (Fig.  13). 

(2)  He  swings  the  diskos  forward  and  as  it  rises  grasps  it  firmly  with  his 
right  hand,  a  position  commoniy  represented  on  vases  (Fig.  3). 

Fig.  3.— E.-F.  Kvi.ix.     B.M.   E»?6 

(3)  He  swings  the  diskos  downwards  and  backwards  in  the  right  hand, 
turning  head  and  body  to  the  right,  till  at  the  end  of  the  backward  swing  he 
is  in  the  position  represented  by  Myron  (Fig.  18). 

In  this  extremely  simple  scheme  the  right  fool  is  the  pivot  on  which  the 
whole  body  swings.  This  swing  of  the  body  round  a  fixed  point  is  of  the 
nee  of  the  swing  of  the  diskos  as  of  a  golf  club.  The  force  comes  not  from 
the  arms,  which  merely  connect  the"  body  and  the  weight,  but  from  the  lift 
of  the  thighs  and  swing  of  the  body.  Kietx  -  in  his  criticism  of  Six's 
scheme  "  describes  the  upward  swing  in  the  left  hand  as  useless,  bi  cause  the 

'■<''•  IT-  - 



diskos  is  thrown  by  the  right  hand,  not  the  left.  Such  criticism  shows 
a  complete  misunderstanding  of  the  whole  theory  of  the  swing,  in  which 
the  arms  are  less  important  than  body  and  legs.  The  scheme  as  far  as 
it  goes  would  be  quite  satisfactory,  were  it  not  that  it  fails  to  account  for  the 
very  large  number  of  vase  paintings  where  the  diskobolos  is  shown  with  the  left 
foot  advanced.     The  same  criticism  applies  to  Jiithner's  scheme. 

Besides  the  positions  of  the  two  statues,  there  are  two  other  positions,  of 
such  frequent  occurrence  on  vases  and  on  bronzes  that  we  feel  sure  that  they 
belong  to  the  ordinary  method  of  throwing  the  diskos. 

(1)  The  diskobolos  .holds  the  diskos  in  front  of  him  in  both  hands 
(Figs.  3,  4,  5,  16,  PI.  II.). 

(2)  He  hold  the  diskos  flat  in  the  right  hand,  which  is  turned  out 
so  that  the  diskos  rests  on  the  forearm  (Figs.  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  Pis.  I.,  III.).  The 
left  hand  is  usually  raised  above  the  head. 

Let  us  examine  these  two  types,  paying  especial  attention  to  the  position 
of  the  feet,  a  detail  of  supreme  importance,  which  has  however  been  unduly 
neglected  by  nearly  all  writers  on  the  subject. 

(1)  Diskos  held  to  the  front  in  both  hand*. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  moment  represented  in  this  type  :  it  is 
the  moment  immediately  before  the  diskos  is  swung  back  in  the  right  hand. 
If  the  right  foot  were  always  advanced,  there  would  be  no  difficulty,  this 
position  being  the  natural  link  between  the  positions  of  the  two  statues.  In 
a  certain  number  of  vases  this  is  the  case,54  but  in  a  far  greater  number  we 
find  the  left  foot  advanced  (Fig.  4).  Now  the  position  of  the  feet  cannot  be 
due  to  accident  or  carelessness,  for  the  uniformity  of  other  details  is  remark- 
able. The  advanced  leg  is  always  straight  or  nearly  so,  the  other  leg  more  or 
less  bent.  The  right  hand  always  grasps  the  diskos,  the  left  hand  merely 
supports  it.  This  position  of  the  hands  is  invariable.55  Kietz,  indeed, 
mentions  a  kylix  where  the  position  of  the  hands  is  reversed  ;  but  the  figure 
there  depicted  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  actual  throw.56  It  is  true  he 
holds  the  diskos  to  the  front  with  both  hands;  but  he  is  standing  at  ease,  with 
both  feet  together,  and  even  has  his  himation  thrown  over  his  shoulder  ! 
Seeing,  then,  that  the  artists  show  such  care  and  accuracy  in  depicting  the 
position  of  the  hands  and  other  details,  we  cannot  dismiss  as  accidental  the  fact 
that  in  so  many  instances  the  left  foot  is  advanced,  while  in  both  the  statues  the 
right  foot  is  in  front.     The  difference  cannot  be  that  between  a  right-handed 

54  Right  foot  in  front,  Gerh.  A.  V.  259,  260  position  of  feet.     Schone  Mus.  Bocchi  1  (a  frag- 

(b.-f.  vases) ;  Mus.  Chins,  ii.  t.  196  (r.-f.  kylix) ;  ment  of  kylix),  r-f.  krater,  Naples  3084,   r-f. 

//..!/.    Vases  E  6   (r.-f.   kylix).      Left    foot    in  kylix,  Munich,  803  ;  r-f.  hydria,  Munich,  377  ; 

front.    Arch.  Zeit.  1878,  11,  1879,  4;  Ann.  d.  I.  r-f.  amphora,  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg    1669  ; 

1846,  4.  M.;  Gerh.  A.  V.  39,  294  ;  Ant.  Bild.  i.  r-f.  fragment,  Berlin  4041. 

4,  68  ;  d'Hancarville  i.  68  ;  B.M.    l'ai,csB142,  This  very  incomplete  list  will  give  some  idea 

326,  361,  576,  691,  E  288  ;    Mus.  Greg.  lii.  1  a,  of  the  frequency  of  this  type. 

4,  lviii.  1,  lxx.  2  a,  Bibliothbque  Rationale,  354.  56  Mus.  Chins  ii.  195  ;  Kietz  op.  cit.  p.  75. 

50  Cp.     vases    where    I    do    not    know    the 



and  left-handed  throw,  for,  apart  from  the  absence  of  any  other  evidence  for 
the  use  of  the  left  hand,  the  position  of  the  hands,  the  right  hand  firmly 
grasping,  the  left  merely  supporting  the  diskos,  proves  conclusively  that  the 
diskos  is  to  be  thrown  with  the  right.  We  are  forced  to  conclude,  therefore, 
that  as  the  diskos  swings  forward  in  the  left  hand  the  left  foot  is  advanced, 
and  of  this  we  shall  find  further  evidence  when  we  come  to  consider  this 
forward  swing. 

How  then  does  the  diskobolos  pass  from  this  position  with  the  left 
foot  forward  to  the  position  of  Myron's  statue  ?  The  change  of  feet  may 
be  effected  in  two  ways — either  by  making  another  step  forward  with  the  right 

Fig.  ■!.— 15.-F.  Kelebe.     15. M.  E  361. 

foot,  or  by  drawing  back  the  left  foot.  The  former  was  the  method  adopted 
by  some  performers  in  the  Olympic  games  of  1S9G.  Starting  with  the 
left  foot  forward,  the  thrower  raised  the  diskos  in  both  hands  to  a  level 
with  the  shoulders,  and  at  the  moment  of  swinging  it  back  advanced 
the  right  foot,  stepping  forward  again  with  the  left  foot  as  the  diskos 
swunc  forward  for  the  throw.  This  method  requires  room  for  three  steps 
forward,  the  impetus  being  helped  by  this  forward  movement  The  other 
method   requires  room   for  only  one    step,  and    the  pendulum-like   swing  of 



the  left  leg,  first  forward,  then  back,  and  finally  forward  again,  seems  at 
least  equally  effective  as  helping  the  swing  of  the  body,  like  the  preliminary 
waggle  of  a  golf  club.57  Both  methods  are,  of  course,  incompatible  with 
the    balbis    of  the    last    Olympic    games.     Both  are    equally    effective,  and 

possibly  both  were  employed.  A  few  of  the  vases 
are  in  favour  of  the  forward  step,58  but  the  strong 
inclination  of  the  body  backwards  in  most  of  the 
figures  is  in  favour  of  the  backward  step.  Par- 
ticularly convincing  is  the  attitude  shown  on  a  r.-f. 
krater  of  Amasis  (Fig.  5).  The  diskobolos  is  re- 
presented three-quarter  face,  a  position  which  has 
greatly  troubled  the  artist :  he  holds  the  diskos 
before  him  in  both  hands,  resting  his  weight  on 
his  right  foot,  while  the  advanced  left  foot  barely 
touches  the  ground.  The  drawing  is  careless  in 
some  respects,  the  athlete,  for  example,  having 
two  right  hands,  but  the  balance  of  the  body 
clearly  indicates  that  the  left  foot  must  be  moved 
backwards.  A  B.M.  hydria  B.  326,  published  in 
Marquardt's  Pentathlon,  PI.  IT.,  carries  the  move- 
Fig.  5.— R.-F.  Krater.  ment  a  step  farther.  The  left  hand  is  already 
<    tei     ai  wig,     ig.  .  releasing  the  diskos,  and  the  left  foot  is  raised  well 

off  the  o-round.  These  two  vases  seem  conclusive  for  the  backward  movement 
of  the  left  foot. 

(2)  Diskos  fiat  in  the  right  haiid. 

The  second  typical  position  of  the  diskobolos  is  with  the  diskos  slightly 
in  front  of  the  body  in  the  right  hand,  which  is  turned  outwards  so 
that  the  diskos  rests  flat  against  the  forearm.  The  left  arm  is  usually  raised 
above  the  head,  or  in  a  few  cases  it  is  stretched  to  the  front.  The  right  foot 
is  usually  advanced.  The  attitude  of  the  body  varies  greatly,  from  the  stiff 
upright  position  of  certain  bronzes  to  the  stooping  attitude  depicted  in  the 
interior  of  a  r.-f.  kylix  ascribed  to  Euphronius  (Fig.  9).  This  difference  of 
attitude  seems  at  first  sight  to  favour  Kietz's  view  that  we  have  here  two 
distinct  types,  one  in  which  the  body  is  practically  at  rest  and  the  performer 
is  merely  feeling  the  weight  of  the  diskos  by  a  short  preliminary  swing,  the 
other  forming  part  of  the  actual  swing.  But  a  consideration  of  the  various 
classes  of  monuments  leads  rather  to  the  conclusion  that  the  position  of  the 
arms  is  the  essential  point,  and  that  the  variation  in  the  pose  of  the  body  is 
due  rather  to  the  limitations  of  the  early  artists. 

The  type  occurs  in  a  number  of  bronzes,  mostly  archaic  and  of  the  class 

57  This  movement  of  the  left  leg  is  part  of 
the  scheme  prepared  by  Six,  the  only  fault  of 
which  is  the  endeavour  to  include  too   many 

types  in  one  series. 

5<  E.g.  B.M.   Vanes  E  393,  395. 



formerly  described  as  Etruscan.59     The  diskobolos  on  the  cover  of  a  bronze 
lebes  in   the  B.M.  (Fig.  6)  is  an  imitation,  possibly  by  an  Etruscan  artist,  of 

Fig.  6.— Diskobolos  on  Bronze  Lebes.     B.M.  559. 

59  Reinach  Mpertoire  ii.  544,  3,  1.  5  ;  Arch. 
Am.    1904,  p.  36,   Fig.  8;    Ann.  d.  I.   1879. 
p.  133,  Mo.  5  (  =  Kietz,  F'.g.  2)  ;  B.U.  1 
502;    Munich  Antiquarium,    L28 ;    Bu 
U.S. — VOL.    XXVII. 

F.  A.  Club  38  ..  b.     A 

.similar  type  is  found  on  the  coins  of  A 
Kietz,  Fig.  4. 


the  Greek  archaic  type,  the  general  features  of  which  it  reproduces,  though 
it  shows  none  of  the  promise  of  true  archaic  art.  The  stiff  attitude  with 
the  feet  only  slightly  apart  and  the  body  upright,  an  attitude  which  at  first 
sight  seems  incompatible  with  vigorous  action,  is  characteristic  of  early 
bronzes.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  uplifted  left  hand,  unless  it  is  to 
balance  the  body  ?  And  why  should  the  body  need  this  assistance  unless 
the  diskos  is  being  vigorously  swung  ?  It  seems  as  if  the  artists  could 
reproduce  the  position  of  the  arms  and  legs,  but  not  that  of  the  body,  in 
action,  a  fact  which  should  not  surprise  us  when  we  remember  that  even 
Myron  in  his  diskobolos  has  not  completely  overcome  this  difficulty.  This 
view  is  confirmed  by  comparison  with  similar  but  finer  Attic  bronzes  of  the 
fifth  century,  where  the  stiffness  has  disappeared  and  the  attitude  is  full  of 
action  and  vigour.     An  excellent  example  of  this  is  the  beautiful  little  bronze 

exhibited  at  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club  in  1903, 
to  the  graceful  vigour  of  which  our  illustration  does 
not  do  justice  (Fig.  7).  Here  the  right  foot  is  well 
advanced,  the  right  knee  is  bent,  and  the  weight, 
as  in  Myron's  statue,  rests  entirely  on  the  right  leg, 
the  left  foot  touching  the  ground  only  with  the  toes. 
Another  interesting  bronze  is  figured  in  the  Cata- 
logue  of  the  Forman  Collection,  No.  77.w  The  left 
arm  instead  of  being  raised  is  extended  horizontally 
sideways,  a  variation  very  similar  to  one  which  we 
shall  find  represented  on  the  vases. 

In  these  bronzes  the  right  leg  is  usually  ad- 
vanced, but  here,  as  in  the  vases,  we  find  a  few 
exceptions  with  the  other  leg  in  front.61  There  are 
also  several  bronzes  representing  a  youth  holding  a 
diskos  in  either  right  or  left  hand,  but  not  expressing 
any  definite  action.1'"2 

The  stiff,  upright  type  is  found  also  on  certain 
black-figured  vessels;  for  example,  on  the  British 
Museum  Panathenaic  vase  B  143.63  Kietz  excludes 
such  vases  from  his  consideration,  on  the  ground  that  the  figures  are 
depicted  in  a  sort  of  procession.  But  despite  the  processional  character 
which  is  common  to  many  early  vases,  the  attitudes  of  all  the  athletes  are 
distinctive  of  their  particular  performances:  the  jumper  swings  his  halteres, 
the  spear-thrower  poises  his  spear,  and  the  diskobolos,  with  his  large  white 
diskos  fiat  in  his  right  hand  and  his  left  hand  uplifted,  is  identical  in  type 
with  the  diskobolos  of  the  bronzes.  At  the  same  time,  the  processional 
character  may  account  for  the  fact  that  he,  like  all  the  other  figures  in   the 

Fig.  7. — Fifth  Century 


(After  Burlington  Fine  Arts 

Club,   1903,  PI.  L.) 

60  Reinach,  op.  cit.  iii.  153,  6. 

,;l  ///.  iii.  153,  5  (according  to  Reinach,  identical 
with  ii.  544,  5,  but  this  is  apparently  an  error, 
or  else  the  drawings  are  wrong,  as  the  position 
of  the  legs  is  reversed) ;  B.M.  504,  559. 

6J  Reinach,  op.  cit.  ii.  544,  6,  7,  9  ;  545, 
1,  2,  4  ;  814,  4. 

63  Jiithner,  op.  cit.,  Fig.  44  ;  J.H.S.  vol.  i. 


precession,  has  the  left  foot  .advanced.  The  very  similar  figure  on  the  B.M. 
vase  B  271  (PI.  I.)  has  the  right  foot  foremost.'14  A  very  conventional 
treatment  of  the  same  type  is  seen  on  a  r.-f.  amphora  in  the  Lambert 
Collection,  reproduced  by  de  Witte,  PI.  xxiv.  The  artist  has  attempted  to 
represent  a  diskobolos  three-quarter  face :  the  exaggerated  treatment  of  the 
muscles  and  the  affected  pose  give  the  figure  an  archaistic  appearance,  and  ue 
Witte  therefore  considers  the  vase  the  work  of  an  Italian  imitator.  I  know  of 
no  examples  of  the  upright  type  on  the  red-figured  vases,  except  perhaps  a  r.-f. 
amphora  in  Munich,65  on  which  are  two  groups  of  three  figures,  diskoboloi 
and  akontistai.  Of  these  only  the  central  figure  in  either  group  represent- 
action.  The  diskobolos  holds  a  diskos  slightly  to  the  front,  flat  in  his  right 
hand  ;  his  body  is  carefully  balanced,  leaning  slightly  backwards,  with  the 
weight  on  the  left  foot,  which  is  behind,  but  the  left  arm  instead  of  being 
raised  is  held  by  the  side,  bent  at  the  elbow. 

Just  as  we  saw  in  the  bronzes  the  archaic  type,  where  the   motive    is 
obscured   by  the   stiffness,  passing  into   a  freer,  more    vigorous  type  where 
the  motive  cannot  possibly  be  mistaken,  so  it  is  with  the 
vases;  and  the  connecting  link  is  furnished  by  the  disko- 
bolos  on   a   b.-f.    tripod    from   Tanagra,   now    in    Berlin 66 
(Fig.   8).     The   artist's    intention   of  expressing   vigorous 
action   is   obvious.     The   bearded   athlete  strides  forward 
with  his  right  leg,  holding  a  thick   white  diskos  in  his 
right  hand   well  in  front  of  the  body,  the  left  hand  being 
raised  as  usual.     In  its  stiffness  and  angularity  the  figure 
resembles  the  archaic  bronzes  ;  in  its  movement  it  suggests 
the   beautiful  figure   in   the  centre   of   the   kylix   in   the         "'  t$ERL[H    1707 
Bourguignon  collection  at  Naples,  to  which  I  have  already 
referred  (Fig.  9).     Every  line  and  curve  in  this  latter  figure  denotes  action, 
though  I  fancy    the  artist  has  somewhat  exaggerated  the  stoop  of  the  body  to 
suit  the  circular  space. 

The  angle  of  the  body  naturally  varies  greatly;  sometimes  it  is  inclined 
forward,  sometimes  upright,  sometimes  thrown  well  back.  This  latter 
position  is  represented  on  a  r.-f.  kylix  published  by  Noel  des  Vergers, 
PI.  xxxvii.,  and  also  on  the  outside  of  the  Bourguignon  kylix  mentioned 
above  (Fig.  10).  In  the  first  of  these  the  left  foot  is  advanced  ;  in  the  second 
the  left  arm  instead  of  being  raised  above  the  head  is  stretched  well  to  the 
front,  still,  however,  with  the  intention  of  balancing  the  body.  We  find 
the  same  position  of  the  arms  on  two  r.-f.  pelikai  in  the  British  Museum 
E393,  395  (PI.  III.).  In  both  the  diskobolos  appears  to  be  taking  a  step 
forward  with  the  right  foot,  but  in  the  one  the  body  is  upright,  in  the  other 
it  is  stooping. 

w  So     too    has    the    diskobolos  on    a  vase  Munich,    408  ;     Furtwangler  -  Reichhold, 

figured  by  Tischbein  i.  ">  I  (Krause  xiii.  14),  of  l'l.  XLV*. 

which  I  can  fiud   no  particulars.      Hi-   lias  his  ",;  Berlin    Yas.     17-7;     Arch.     Zeit.     1881, 

righl    ami    bent    at  the  elbow,  ami  the  whole  l'l.  III. 
attitude  i-  supple  an  1  vigorous. 

c  -1 



If  then  we  are  right  in  assuming  that,  in  spite  of  variations,  the  motive 
of  all  these  bronzes  and  vases  is  the  same,  the  essential  points  being  the  use 

FIG.  g__R.-F.  Kylix.     Naples 

PI.  XVI. 

of  the  unemployed  hand  to  balance  the  body  aod  the  position  of  the  hand 
which  holds  the  diskos,  it  remains  to  consider  what  this  motive  is.      We  may 

dismiss  at  once  the  delightful  suggestion  of  Girard 
that  the  diskobolos  amused  himself  by  throwing  the 
diskos  up  in  the  air  and  catching  it,  and  that  this 
is  the  motive  here  represented.07  We  may  also 
dismiss  Kietz's  suggestion  that  in  those  cases  where 
a  swing  is  clearly  indicated  the  diskobolos  is  swing- 
inp;  the  diskos  backwards  and  forwards  in  the  right 
hand  in  order  to  make  the  muscles  supple.  This 
idea  fails  to  explain  why  the  right  hand  is  turned 
outwards,  and  is  based  on  the  mistaken  idea  that 
the  throw  of  the  diskos  depends  chiefly  on  the  swing 
of  the  right  arm  and  not  On  the  bod}7  swing. 
Juthner,  again,  imagines  that  the  diskos  is  being 
swung  to  the  front  in  the  right  hand,  and  he  there- 
fore places  this  movement  previous  to  the  position 
with  the  diskos  in  both  hands.  But  this  view  is 
open  to  the  same  objection  as  Kietz's  scheme  :  there 
is  no  danger  of  the  diskos  slipping,  and  the  out- 
ward turn  of  the  right  hand  is  pointless.  It  is  not  only  pointless,  it  is 
unnatural;  for  every  gymnast  knows  how   difficult  it   is  to  raise  a   weight 

Fig.  10. 

(From  exterior  of 
Fig.  9.) 

67  Lo-.  cit.  p.  202. 


to  the  front  with  the  hand  turned  out,  and  we  may  be  sure  that,  in  an 
exercise  depending  for  its  success  on  the  smooth  and  harmonious  working 

of  all  the  muscles,  any  such  constrained  and  awkward  movement  would 
have  been  avoided.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  movement  represented 
is  a  downward  swing  from  the  two-handed  position  to  the  position  of 
Myron's  statue,  all  difficulties  vanish.  This  downward  swing  must  have 
been  a  very  vigorous  movement,  in  which  the  diskos  might  easily  slip. 
Hence  the  outward  turn  of  the  right  hand  to  prevent  slipping,  and  the 
use  of  the  left  hand  to  preserve  the  balance.  Hence  too  the  fact  that  in 
marly  every  case  the  right  leg  is  advanced. 

This  view  of  the  relation  between  the  two  types  is  confirmed  by  a 
most  interesting  bronze  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  11),  which  represents 
the  moment  of  transition.68  The  diskobolos  stands  with  right  foot 
advanced  and  both  hands  holding  the  diskos,  which  instead  of  being 
upright  rests  flat  on  the  palm  of  the  right  hand,  while  the  left  hand  only 
touches  it  lightly  and  is  on  the  point  of  letting  go.  We  may  notice,  however, 
that  the  thumb  of  the  left  hand  is  turned  inwards,  whereas  in  the  vases  it  is 
as  a  rule  on  the  outside  of  the  diskos.  The  same  peculiarity  is  noticeable 
in  a  bronze  in  the  Museum  at  Athens,09  where  the  diskos  is  held  in  both 
hands  high  above  the  head.  This  position  could  not  be  reached  if  the  diskos 
were  swung  to  the  front  in  the  left  hand  from  the  position  of  the  standing 
diskobolos.  If,  however,  the  diskobolos  takes  up  his  stand  holding  the  diskos 
in  the  left  hand  level  with  the  shoulder,  and  then,  grasping  it  with  the  right 
hand,  raises  it  to  arm's  length,  we  reach  the  exact  position  represented  in  the 
bronzes.  The  attitude  is  indeed  depicted  on  several  vases,  the  diskos  being 
sometimes  held  close  to  the  head,70  sometimes  extended  to  the  front.'1 
Variations  of  the  motive  occur  where  the  diskos  is  held  thus  on  the  right 
hand  ~-  or  rests  on  the  shoulder,7^  and  in  such  figures  there  can  be  no  connexion 
with  the  actual  throw,  but  the  position  of  the  hand  in  the  bronzes  forces  us 
to  suppose  a  previous  position  with  the  diskos  raised  thus  in  the  left  hand. 
The  position  is  well  shown  on  a  lekythos  from  Eretria,  published  in  the 
Ephemeris  for  L886  (Fig.  12)  though,  as  Mr.  Bosanquet  points  out  to  me,  it 
i-  doubtful  if  this  particular  vase  represents  a  stage  in  the  throw,  the  stool 
with    the   clothes  upon    it    rather   indicating   that   the  youth  is  leaving  the 

M  B.M.  Bronzcs675  ;  Murray  Greek  Sculpture  photograph  of  it.     On  a  B.M.  gem,  1817,  the 

i.  p.  27-1.     Perhaps  the  same  moment  is  repre-  diskobolos  holds  the  diskos  high  above  thi 

seuted    oil    the  B.M.    kylix    E  96,    where   the  in  both  hands. 

righl  hand  grasps  the  diskos  as  usual,  while  r"  Gerh.  A.V.  272;  B.M.  Vases,  E  256. 
the  left,  instead  of  supporting  it  underneath,  <']>.  relief  on  Athenian  stele,  Syhel  Weft- 
res  fs  flat  on  the  surface.  yeschichU   der  Kwist,  p.   107;    Murray    i 

"•  No.    7412,    Chryssaphis  op.    <■<(..    Fig.   •_>  Sculpture  i.  p.  183. 

Though  the  surface  is  much  corroded,  it  is  of  :1  R.-f.    amphorae,    Munich,     1,    9=  Kietz 

fine  and   vigorous  workmanship.      It    will   be  op.  cit.,   Figs.  6",  7:  'E<p.  'Apx-  1886,   PI.   IV: 

Bhortly    published    in    the   catalogue    of    the  B.M.   Vases,  E  96. 

Athenian  bronzes  by  the  Ephor  M.  Stais,  who  Gerh.  A.V.  22. 

lias  kindly  sunt   me  through   Mr.    Dawkins  a  7>  A'..'/.  Vases,  B 


dressing-room,  perhaps  calling   to  a  companion  to  come  on.     Here  then  we 
have  an  alternative  position  to  that  of  the  Standing  Diskobolos. 

Fig.  11. — Bronze  in  the  British  Museum  (675). 



One  difficulty  remains.  As  we  have  seeu,  the  normal  position  of  the 
first  type,  with  the  diskos  in  both  hands,  shows  the  left  foot  forward  ;  the 
normal  position  of  the  second  type,  with  the  diskos  flat  in  the  right  hand, 
shows  the  right  foot  forward.  The  transition  is  made  either  by  advancing 
the  right  foot  or,  more  probably,  by  (hawing  back  the  left.  There  are,  however, 
exceptions.  Sometimes  the  right  foot  is  to  the  front  in  the  first  type, 
occasionally  the  left  foot  in  the  second  type.74  Though  such  variations  may 
possibly  be  due  to  the  artist's  carelessness,  the  care  shown  in  other  details 
renders  it  more  probable  that  they  are  due  to  variations  in  the  style  of 
throwing.     For  example,  a  diskobolos  starting  with   the  right  foot  forward 

i&?&PGfc&&tetef&<    '^lara/s. 

Fig.   12. — Lektthos  from   Eketria.     (From  'E<p.  'Apx-   1886.) 

might  prefer  to  reach  the  forward  position  without  advancing  the  left 
foot.  Or  again,  supposing  he  does  advance  the  left  foot,  and  supposing  that 
to  reach  the  position  of  Myron's  statue  he  has  to  draw  back  the  left  foot,  this 
movement  of  the  foot  may  take  place  at  various  times.  He  may  let  go  the 
diskos  with  the  left  hand  first,  in  which  case  we  have  the  diskos  swinging 
hack  in  the  right  hand  and  the  left  les;  still  advanced.  If,  however,  he  drew 
back  the  left  leg  first,  he  would  for  a  moment  still  be  holding  the  diskos  in 
both  hands,  but  the   right  leg  would   be  advanced,  and    it  is  noticeable  that 

74   V.  supra  pp.  14.  IS. 


in  vases  which  do  show  this  attitude  the  left  foot  rests  very  lightly  on  the 
ground,  and  the  body  is  slightly  inclined  forward.  The  precise  moment  at 
which  the  change  took  place  would  be  just  one  of  those  details  in  which  we 
might  expect  to  find  a  difference  in  style. 

It  has  been  necessary  to  discuss  these  types  at  length,  because  they 
establish  the  two  important  principles,  that  the  diskobolos  changed  the 
position  of  his  feet  in  different  parts  of  the  swing,  and  that  there  was  con- 
siderable variation  in  the  style  of  throwing.  At  the  same  time,  there  are 
certain  typical  positions  which  we  may  regard  as  fixed  :  the  position  with  the 
diskos  in  both  hands,  the  swing  back  in  the  right  hand,  and  Myron's  dis- 
kobolos. Bearing  these  principles  and  these  positions  in  mind,  we  may  proceed 
to  reconstruct  the  method  of  throwing. 

F. — Reconstruction  of  the  Throw. 

(a)  The  stand  and  preliminary  movements. 

After  first  rubbing  the  diskos  with  sand75  to  secure  a  better  grip,  the 
diskobolos  takes  up  his  position  on  the  balbis,  a  space  possibly  marked  out  by 
side  line?,  certainly  by  a  line  in  front.  At  a  little  distance  behind  this  line 
he  takes  his  stand,  carefully  measuring  with  his  eye  the  space  he  requires,  so 
as  not  to  overstep  the  line.  This  is  the  precise  moment  represented  in  the 
Standing  Diskobolos  (Fig.  13),  a  statue  the  athletic  meaning  of  which  has  been 
so  much  neglected  that  one  writer  has  actually  proposed  to  reconstruct  it  as  a 
Hermes  Diskophoros.70  The  care  with  which  he  is  plantiug  the  right  foot, 
the  firm  grip  which  the  toes  are  taking  of  the  ground  and  the  consequent 
contraction  of  the  muscles  of  the  calf  and  leg,  the  slight  bend  of  the  body  to 
the  right,  all  indicate  that  though  the  weight  may  for  the  moment  rest  on 
the  left  leg,  it  will  be  immediately  transferred  to  the  right.  Whether  the 
left  leg  is  kept  stationary,  or  is  advanced  to  the  front  and  then  drawn  back, 
the  right  leg  is  the  pivot  on  which  the  swing  depends  ;  and  on  no  other 
hypothesis  can  the  statue  be  explained.  The  position  is  one  of  rest ;  but  it 
is  the  rest  which  precedes  action,  and  every  line  of  the  figure  betokens  the 
preparation  for  action.  A  point  which  has  never,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  duly 
noticed  is  the  direction  of  the  head  and  eyes.  The  diskobolos  is  not,  as  is 
sometimes  asserted,  looking  down  the  course  toward  the  mark,  whatever  the 
mark  may  be  ;  much  less  is  he  taking  aim,  a  part  of  the  performance  to 
which  Juthner  and  others  assign  an  undue  importance  in  a  competition  for 
distance.  His  head  is  inclined  to  the  right  and  somewhat  downwards,  and 
his  eyes  are  fixed  on  the  ground  a  few  feet  in  front.  He  is,  as  I  have  said, 
mentally  measuring  the  distance  to  which  he  may  advance  the  left  foot  as  in 
the  final  swing  the  diskos  is  swung  forward  for  the  throw.  For,  in  spite  of  the 
modern  Greek  authorities,  the  actual  throw  must  take  place  off  the  left  foot. 

75  Statins  loc.  cif.  view  is  refuted   by  A.  Michaelis  in   the  same 

7,;  G.    Habich  in  Jahrb.    1898.  p.  57.     This       vol.  p.  175. 


The  right  forearm  is  said  to  be  modern:  if  so,  the  restoration  is  peculiarly 
happy  :  the  position  of  the  arm  is  found  on  certain  bronzes  which  closely 
resemble  the  statue77  and  the  nervous  curling  of  the  fingers  appropriately 
suggests  alertness  and  readiness  to  seize  the  diskos  as  it  is  swung  forward  in 
the  left  hand  to  the  front,  position.     The  artisl  has  not  merely  put  a  diskos  into 

Fig,  13.  -The  Standing  Diskobolos.     Vatican. 

the  hand  of  a  youth  standing  at  ease;   he  has,  as  we   should  expect  him  to   '\>> 

in  a  work  of  such  importance,  selected  a  truly  typical  and  important  position. 

Starting  then  in  this   position,  the  thrower  may  either  keep  the  Left  leg 

stationary  or   step   forward  with  it.     In   the  latter  ease   he  will  be  in   the 

Pourtales  xiii.  3  =  Reinacli  ii.  545  Am.  1904,  p.  36,  n.  7. 



position  shown  on  the  Pauaetius  kylix  in  Munich  (Fig.  14).     The  left  leg  is 
advanced  and  straight ;  the  weight  rests  on  the  right  leg,  which  is  bent ;  the 

body  leans  forward,  and  the  right 
hand  extended  to  the  front  serves  to 
counterbalance  the  weight  of  the 
diskos,  which  is  still  held  behind  the 
body.  Kietz  sees  in  this  figure  a 
left-handed  diskobolos  about  to  throw 
— in  a  most  original  style!  Juthner 
sees  in  him  a  youth  stooping  down 
to  fix  or  take  up  a  peg.  But  when 
we  compare  this  figure  with  others 
which  do  undoubtedly  represent  this 
motive,  we  find  a  fundamental  dif- 
ference in  the  whole  attitude.  The 
'  vorsichtig  balancierender  Schritt' 
which  Juthner  himself  notices  is 
surely  not  necessary  for  putting  down 
or  pulling  up  a  mark,  and  the 
straightness  of  the  extended  left  leg 
would  render  such  an-operation  quite  difficult.78  Perhaps  we  may  see  the 
swing  forward   in   a   more   advanced  state,  the    diskos    being    now   in  front 

of  the  body,  on  a  vase  figured  by  Tischbein  iv.  42  and   on   the  B.M.  kylix 
E  58,7i)  but  neither  attitude  is  very  satisfactory. 

The  position  of  the  Vatican  diskobolos  is  reproduced,  as  has  been  said,  in 

78  A    very   similar   type   occurs  on   the  r.-f. 
kylix  in  Rome,  Mus.  Greg.  lxx.  2,  a. 

'»  J.H.S.  xxiv.  191,  Fi«.  10. 



certain  bronzes,  but  does  nut.,  so  far  as  I  know,  occur  od  the  vases.  The  latter, 
however,  suggest  alternative  methods  of  starting  the  swing.  One  of  these, 
where  the  diskos  is  held  shoulder  high  in  the  left  hand  and  then  raised 
above  the  head  in  both  hands,  has  been  already  described.  Another  method 
is  suggested  by  vases  which  show  a  diskobolos  holding  the  diskos  in  both 
hands,  but  low  down  and  with  the  arms  bent  close  m  to  the  body80  (PJ.  EL). 
From  this  position  it  could  be  swung  up  in  both  hands  to  a  level  with  the 
head.  In  this  type  the  left  leg  is  already  advanced.  The  actual  swing 
is  perhaps  depicted  en  the  r.-f.  kylix  published  in  Gerhard  A.  V.  294 
(Fig.  15),  but  it  is  possible  that  the  position  here  represented  forms  part  of  the 

Pig.  lt.i. — iFi inieiiorof  Fig.  14.) 

Fig.  17.— R.-F.  Kylix. 
(After  Hartwig,   PI.   LXIII.   2.) 

first    method     described,    coming    between    the    moments    represented    in 

Figs.    1+  and     16,   and    that    in    the   other  cases   we   have   merely  an   athlete 
carrying  a  diskos. 

(b)  77/''  backward  swing. 

At  the  end  of  the  swing  forward,  the  diskobolos  holds  the  diskos 
extended  to  the  front  horizontally  in  both  hands,  the  body  upright 
or  inclined  backwards,  the  weight  chiefly  on  the  back  foot.  If  the 
right  foot  is  in  front,  no  further  change  of  foot  is  necessary;  if  the  left 
is  in  front,  either  the  left  foot  mu*t  be  drawn  back  or  the  right  foot 
a  Ivanced.     The  latter  method  does  not  explain  the  position  with  the  diskos 

R.-f.  kylix  in  Louvre,  figured  by  Pottier,       viii.    1;    Miu.   Oreg.    lii.    1,    a;    /•'..'/.    V 
Duris,   F;g.  6;   Gozzadini  di  hi  anl.   .V.-  B  576. 

'ig.   18. — Myron's  Diskobolos.     (Rome,   Palazzo  Lanci 
(By  permission  of  Messrs.  Methuen  and  Co.) 

lotti  ) 


in  the  right  hand  and  the  left  foot  forward;  and  though  there  is  some 
evidence  for  it,  most  of  the  monuments  are  in  favour  of  the  drawing  back  ol 
the  left  foot.  The  variations  in  the  swing  backward  have  already  been 
discussed.  The  diskos  is  held  flat  in  the  hand  until  it  passes  the  body;  at 
this  point  the  head  and  body  commence  to  turn  to  the  right,  till  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  swing  the  position  of  Myron's  diskobolos  is  reached.  The 
moment  previous  is  well  illustrated  (Fig.  17  cf.  below,  p.  36)  on  a  r.-f.  kylix 
figured  by  Hartwig.  It  is  difficult  to  say  for  certain  whether  the  moment 
depicted  is  just  before  the  top  of  the  backward  swing,  or  is  the  beginning 
of  the  forward  swung.  But  though  the  position  of  the  feet  certainly  favours 
the  latter  hypothesis,81  the  forward  inclination  of  the  body  and  the  evident 
care  with  which  the  youth  is  balancing  himself  seem  to  me  conclusive  ior 
the  former  view,  which  is  further  confirmed  by  comparison  with  vases  which 
undoubtedly  represent  the  forward  swing. 

(c)  The  top  of  the  backward  swing.     Coins  of  Cos. 

An  interesting  variation  of  the  top  of  the  swing  is  represented  on  a 
number  of  coins  of  Cos  belonging  to  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  It 
has  been  the  fashion  to  connect  this  type  with  a  totally  different  position 
depicted  on  a  Panathenaic  amphora  to  be  discussed  later,  and  to  place  the 
moment  represented  immediately  before  or  after  the  top  of  the  swing.  A 
few  experiments  would  convince  anyone  that  no  one  but  a  contortionist  could 
pass  from  this  position  to  that  of  Myron's  statue,  or  vice  versa,  and  that  such 
a  movement  would  be  fatal  to  any  success.  The  position  of  the  right  hand, 
with  the  diskos  turned  to  the  front,  excludes  the  theory  of  Chryssaphis  that 
we  have  here  the  beginning  of  the  backward  swing.  Three  points  deserve 
attention  :  the  bend  of  the  leg,  the  position  of  the  right  hand,  and  the  position 
of  the  left  arm.  When  we  examine  a  series  of  these  coins  we  are  led  at  once 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  attitude  of  the  body  is  largely  due  to  the  shape 
of  the  coin  space.  This  will  be  obvious  from  the  series  published  below 
from  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  19).  The  way  in  which  the  body  is  bent  over 
to  the  right  is  manifestly  impossible.  In  Myron's  diskobolos  the  body  turns 
round  the  hips,  but  its  inclination  is  forward  ;  here  the  turn  is  hardly  indicated, 
and  the  body  is  bent  to  the  right.  The  explanation  is,  I  believe,  purely  artistic. 
The  maker  of  the  coin  die  wished  to  represent  a  diskobolos  at  the  top  of  the 
swing  from  the  front.  The  difficulty  of  such  a  task  can  be  best  realised  by  a 
glance  at  Myron's  statue  from  this  position.  To  the  artist  of  the  early  fifth 
century  the  difficulty  was  insuperable.  The  amount  of  foreshorten  in- 
required  to  represent  the  forward  bend  of  the  body  was  far  beyond  him,  and 
even  if  it  had  not  been,  the  success  of  the  result  ona  coin  would  have  been  more 
than  doubtful.  Moreover,  the  circular  space  had  to  be  appropriately  filled. 
He  adopted  therefore  the  obvious  expedient  of  bending  tin-  body  to  the  right 
instead  of  forward.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  for  an  admirable  illus- 
tration of  the  same  process.     In  various  cultus  statues  the  arms  were  by  the 

81  The  position  of  the  right  fool  may  be  due  to  a  dislike  of  foreshortening. 



side,  bent  at  right  angles,  with  the  forearms  extended  to  the  front :  on  coins 
representing  them  the  forearms  are  extended  not  to  the  front,  but  to  the  right 
and  left.82  Another  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  manner  in  which  the  heads 
of  the  horses  are  turned  right  and  left  in  a  quadriga  represented  from  the 
front.83  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  variations  which  occur  on  the  coins 
themselves.  The  more  the  body  is  bent  sideways,  the  more  it  is  elongated, 
while  in  the  more  upright  figures  there  is  a  decided  attempt  at  foreshortening. 
To  the  same  cause  may  be  due  the  position  of  the  front  loot.  The  foot  is 
sometimes  foreshortened  in  vase  paintings,  but  the  result  is  often  by  no  means 

Fig.   19. — Series  of  Coins  of  Cos  in  B.M.     (Enlarged. 

happy,  and  the  coin  maker  therefore  avoids  the  difficulty  by  extending  the 
foot  in  such  a  way  that  the  diskobolos  appears  to  be  standing  on  tip-toe. 

Coming  to  the  arms  and  hands,  we  may  remark  first  that  the  bending 
of  the  right  arm  noticeable  on  certain  of  the  coins  is  clearly  due  to  consider- 
ations of  space.     The  position  of  the  diskos,  again,  may  be  due  to  the  fact 

82  E.g.   Artemis  of    Ephesus,   B.M.C.    Ionia       Magnesia,  ib.  xix.  4,  5,  67. 
xiii.  1,  2,  7,  8,  VI;   Artemis  Leukophryene  at  83  Gerh.  ././'.  105. 


that  if  represented  parallel  to  the  body  it  would  appear  from  the  front 
merely  as  a  thin  line,  which  on  so  small  an  object  as  a  coin  would  be 
unrecognisable.  It  may,  however,  also  be  due  to  a  difference  in  the  style 
of  throwing.  We  have  seen  that  the  left  hand  is  sometimes  raised  above  the 
head  in  the  swing  back,  and  we  shall  find  it  still  raised  in  the  swing- 
forward  as  represented  in  Fig.  21.  It  is  only  natural  then  that  it  should  be 
raised  in  the  intermediate  position.  Now  a  supple,  youthful  athlete  would  be 
always  liable  to  exaggerate  the  swing,  just  as  the  youthful  golfer  does. 
In  such  an  exaggerated  style  the  right  hand  would  be  raised  higher  than 
in  Myron's  statue,  and  as  it  reached  the  perpendicular  would  naturally 
turn  outwards  so  that  the  diskos  would  face  to  the  front,  while  the  tendency 
would  be  to  keep  the  left  hand  raised  in  order  to  balance  the  body.  I  am 
not  saying  that  such  a  swing  is  as  effective  as  that  represented  by  Myron. 
The  artist  of  the  coin  was  not  depicting  an  ideal,  but  working  from  his 
own  experience  of  what  may  have  been  a  local  fashion.  My  point  is 
that  such  an  exaggerated  style  is  natural,  and  my  point  will  be  conceded 
by  any  one  familiar  with  the  differences  exhibited  by  golfers  at  the  top 
of  the  swing.  Compare,  for  example,  the  position  of  the  young  St.  Andrews 
player  with  that  of  Vardon  or  Taylor.  My  conclusion  then  is  that  the 
Coan  coins  represent  a  variation  of  the  same  moment  as  that  of 
Myron's  statue,  modified  by  the  shape  of  the  coin  space  and  the 
limitations  of  the  artist. 

(d)   The  throw. 

'  The  diskobolos,'  says  Lucian,  speaking  of  Myron's  statue,  '  seems  as 
if  he  would  straighten  himself  up  at  the  throw.'84  At  the  besrinnino-  of 
the  saving  forward  the  extensor  muscles  come  into  play,  and  by  a  vigorous  lift 
from  the  right  thigh  the  whole  body  is  raised  and  straightened.  This 
momentary  but  most  important  movement  is  finely  represented  on  two 
vases,  a  Panathenaic  vase  in  Naples  and  ab.-f.  hydria  in  the  British  Museum 
(Figs.  20  and  21).  The  attitude  depicted  is,  as  far  as  I  know,  unique  in 
Greek  athletic  art,  which  prefers  positions  of  comparative  rest  and 
equilibrium.  But  here  we  have  a  sort  of  snapshot,  an  impressionist  picture 
of  a  momentary  position  which  cannot  possibly  be  maintained.  On  the 
Panathenaic  vase  especially,  the  thrower  seems  to  be  flying  from  the  ground 
in  a  way  which  recalls  the  figures  of  Winged  Victory  so  strongly  as  to 
suggest  the  idea  that  the  attitude  is  borrowed  from  this  type.  The  position 
of  body,  legs,  and  arms  is  identical:  substitute  the  victor's  wreath  for 
the  diskos,  and  add  the  wings,  and  we  have  the  Winged  Victory  so  often 
represented  on  athletic  vases;  and  it  is  certainly  appropriate  that  the 
artist    should    borrow  from    and    suggest    the    figure    of  victory  on    a    vase 

w   Pkilopseud.    18.      Maiv   tuv    SiffKevovTa,    ?)v        6i<\a£ovTa  r&    erf  pep,    toiKora    avvavaarriaoui'vip 
8    fyd,.  (pTjs  rov  iirtKiKvcpora  Kara  rh   a\V^  tt}s        juera  rfjj  $oAijs  ; 
a<pt<jsu>s,  airfffTpaujutfov  eis  rrjv  8i<TKO<p6pov,  vpffia 



intended  for  the  prize  of  victory.  The  position  of  the  head  and  right 
arm  lead  is  similar  to  that  depicted  on  the  coins  of  Cos.  But  whereas  on 
the  coins  the  body  is  bent  sideways  and  the  right  leg  is  upright,  on  the 

Fig.   20. — Panathekaic  Vase.     Naples.     (After  Bull.  Nap.) 

vase  the  whole  figure  forms  a  curve  from  head  to  toe,  and  is  overbalanced. 
On    the  British    Museum    hydria   the   curve    is    not   quite   as  marked,  and 



Fig.  21.—  R.-F.    Hymua.     B.M.  E  164.     (After  li.C.H.   1899.) 

the  moment  shown  is  slightly  later  ;  the  two  vases  illustrate  also  the  two 
different  positions  of  the  left  arm  which  have  already  been  noticed. 


A  curious  variation  occurs  in  an  early  Athenian  lekythos  from  the  Pozzi 
Collection,85  to  which  Mr.  G.  F.  Hill  has  called  my  attention  (Fig.  22  >.  The 
general  position  closely  resembles  that  which  we  have  been  discussing, 
but  the  diskos  instead  of  lying  along  the  forearm  is  turned  upwards  so 
as  to  rest  between  the  fingers  and  thumb.86  The  vase  painter  frequently 
makes  mistakes  in  drawing  hands,  and  such  a  mistake  is  the  only  possible 
explanation  of  our  present  figure. 

Jiithner,  identifying  the  type  of  the  Naples  amphora  with  that 
of  the  coins,  considers  them  to  represent  a  distinct  method  of  throwing 
the  diskos,  which  he  calls  the  Kreis-schwung.87  He  supposes  the  diskobolos 
to  whirl  his  arm  round  from  the  front,  right  over  his  head,  and  he  supports 
his  theory  by  a  variety  of  poetical  quotations.  Epeius  hurls  the  solos 
Sivijvas,  Odysseus  the  diskos  irepi<np£^a<;  ;  in  Pindar  Nikeus  hurls  the 
stone  x^Pa  tcvfcXaxrais.  Even  Propertius  and  Statius  are  called  to  witness. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  the  obvious  appropriateness  of  these  ex- 
pressions to  the  ordinary  method  of  throwing  the  diskos  or  any  other  object. 

Fi<;.  22. — Athenian  Lekythos.     Boulogne.     (From  Lc  ilus6c.) 

To  argue  that  they  denote  a  complete  revolution  cf  the  arm  is  the  quintessence 
of  pedantry,  inexcusable  even  if  the  expressions  occurred  in  prose ;  and  it 
is  indeed  surprising  that  Jiithner,  whose  useful  work  is  generally  dis- 
tinguished by  great  soundness  of  judgment,  should  have  allowed  himself  to  be 
misled  by  a  passage  or  two  of  the  scholiasts  into  so  unpractical  a  theory. 
A  lio-ht  object,  easily  grasped,  might  be  thrown  a  certain  distance  in  this  way  ; 
certainlv  not  a  heavy,  slippery  object  like  the  diskos,  much  less  the  ponderous 
Homeric  solos.  It  is  unnecessary  to  labour  the  point,  especially  as  the 
position  which  we  are  discussing  forms  the  natural  sequel  to  that  of  Myron's 


I  have  compared  the  position  to  that  of  the  Winged  Victory;  but  the 
diskobolos  has  no  wings,  and  unless  he  recovers  his  equilibrium  by  advancing 
one  foot,  he  must  fall  forward  on  the  ground.  The  modern  thrower  '  in  the 
Hellenic  style'  does  contrive  to  rid  himself  of  the  diskos  in  this  attitude. 
but  the   throw  inevitably  suffers;  and  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  that 

«  Lc  Music,  Vol.  iii,  p.  178,  Fig.  12.  !p.  Figs.  11.  12.  .••  eit.  p.  32. 

H.S. — VOL.  XXVII.  D 



the  ancient  diskobolos  had  to  throw  off  the  right  foot.  Indeed,  the 
evidence  of  literature  and  art  is  conclusive  for  the  throw  off  the  left 
foot,  the  only  rational  method  of  throwing.  'The  left  foot'  says  Philo- 
stratus,  '  must  be  swung  to  the  front  with  the  right  arm,' ss  and  his  words  are 
confirmed  by  the  less  definite  language  of  Lucian  and  Statins,  and  by  the 
vases.     A    r.-f.    kylix   at    Boulogne59   (Fig.    23)    shows   the    early  part    of 

Fig.  23. — R.-F.  Kylix.     Boulogne. 

the  movement.  And  the  actual  throw  is  vividly  portrayed  on  a  b.-f. 
hydria  in  Vienna 90  (Fig.  24).  On  both  vases  the  diskobolos  strides  vigorously 
forward  with  his  left  leg.  Elsewhere  the  motive  is  more  or  less  obscured,  but 
Six  appears  to  be  right  in  thus  explaining  the  figure  of  the  diskobolos  on  the 
Leyden  Panathenaic  amphora,  though  the  grotesque  exaggeration  of  this  vase 
discredits  its  evidence.91  The  diskobolos,  the  jumper,  and  the  spear  thrower  all 
appear  to  be  running,  an  action  perhaps  introduced  by  the  artist  to  give  more 
life  to  the  convention  of  the  processional  type.     If  we  make  allowance  for 

this,  we  find  the  movements  represented  are  really 
typical  of  their  respective  performances.  Possibly 
we  may  assign  to  the  same  motive  the  diskobolos 
on  a  r.-f.  kylix  of  Corneto,  published  in  the  Mon. 
d.  I.  XI.  PI.  24  and  also  a  wall  painting  repro- 
duced in  Mus.  Chius.  PI.  cxxvi.  In  both  thase 
cases  the  bending  of  the  right  arm  sugorests  some 
doubt  as  to  the  action,  but  this  may  be  a  modifi- 
cation due  to  space  limitation,  such  as  we  have 
noticed  in  the  representation  of  Myron's  disko- 
bolos on  gems  or  on  the  coins  of  Cos.  Of  another 
wall  painting,  figured  in  Mus.  Borbonico,  ix.  52,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Perhaps  a  stjll  later  moment,  jusl   before  the  diskos  quits  the  right  hand,  is 

Fig.  24.—  B.-F.   Hydria. 

"'   V.  supra,  p.  9. 

H>  Le  Muste,  Vol.  iii,  Fig.  32. 

•    Masner   Mus.    fiir   Kun&t   und   Imdustn 

Wien,  318. 
U1  Arch.  Zeit.  1881.  PI.  ix. 


represented  in  an  exceedingly  quainl  tei  racotta  found  a1  Smyrna  and  exhibited 
al  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club  in  L888.02  The  exaggerated  emaciation  of  the 
body  and  contorted  attitude  are  typical  of  this  cl  [ue.    The  position 

is  evidently  influenced  by  Myron's  statue,  bu1  the  left  foot  is  advanced  and  the 
diskos  has  already  swung  to  the  front. 

The  so-called  bronze  diskoboloi  of  Naples  are  said  to  represent  the 
moment  after  the  throw,  but  this  interpretation  seems  to  me  impossible,  in 
view  of  the  position  of  the  arms  and  the  alertness  and  expectancy  ex- 
pressed both  by  the  figures  and  the  heads,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  are 
really  wrestlers.  Moreover,  as  the  diskos  leaves  the  hand  the  righl  fool  must 
be  again  advanced  to  prevent  the  thrower  from  falling  forward,  and  in  the 
bronzes  the  left  foot  is  advanced.  Of  this  final  movement  of  the  follow 
through  we  have  perhaps  a  representation  in  the  right-hand  athlete  in  Fig.  23, 
but  as  the  diskos  has  already  left  the  hand,  it  is  impossible  with  certainty  to 
identify  the  position.  Whether  in  this  movement  the  thrower  was  allowed 
to  overstep  the  balbis  or  not,  we  cannot  say. 

In  palaestra  scenes  we  often  see  youths  carrying  a  diskos  whose  position, 
whether  at  rest  or  in  motion,  has  clearly  nothing  to  do  with  the  actual  throw; 
similar  types  occur  also  in  the  bronzes.  Some  of  these  have  been  alluded  to, 
and  it  would  be  useless  to  deal  with  them  in  detail.  A  word,  however,  may  be 
said  as  to  certain  gems,  though  the  evidence  of  this  class  of  monument  has 
little  independent  value.  The  numerous  representatives  of  Myron's  statu 
have  been  already  mentioned.  Perhaps  the  influence  of  this  statue  may  be 
traced  on  a  Berlin  paste  No.  4561,94  where  the  diskobolos  is  apparently  on  the 
point  of  throwing  the  diskos,  which  is  swinging  down  in  the  right  hand,  still 
behind  the  body,  while  the  left  arm  is  swung  forward;  the  body  and  head  are 
thrown  backward,  and  the  right  foot  is  vigorously  advanced.  Furtwangler 
describes  him  as  '  im  Anlauf  begriffen,'  and  compares  him  to  the  diskobolos 
on  the  Leyden  amphora.  The  evidence  for  a  preliminary  run  is  non-existent, 
and  I  prefer  to  assign  the  position  of  the  right  leg  to  the  influence  of  Myron. 
Another  Berlin  gem  shows  a  somewhat  similar  position  of  the  arms,  with  the 
left  foot  in  advance.  This  gem  is  interesting  from  the  fact  that  a  flaw  in  the 
stone  was  long  interpreted  as  an  elevation,  or  mound,  representing  the  bater 
or  balbis,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  it  cut  off  the  thrower's  left  foot. 
Fortunately  we  have  a  duplicate  in  which  the  flaw  is  wanting.95  The  dupli- 
cate has  also  a  peculiarity,  in  that  the  diskobolos  holds  in  his  left  hand  a  cord, 
a  peculiarity  repeated  on  the  B.M.  gem  1816.  The  cord  is  possibly  a  boxing 
thong,  but  why  if  should  be  inserted  has  not  been  explained.  The  close 
connection  between  the  spear  and  the  diskos  renders  it  m  »re  likely  that 
it  represents  the  spear-thrower's  ayKvkri  or  amentum.  It  is  curious  that 
such  a  piece  >>\'  evidence  should  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  advoi 
of  the  hole  and  string  theory  of  the  diskos  or  solos! 

Bi  mteghem  Coll.  223. 
vi  Eurtwangler  op.  cit,  xiiv.  26,  -j7  .  Ixvi.  B  ;  .  x!i\.  -j-  i  =Krausi  xiii.       !  I 

i:.M.  ','■  'wis,  742. 

I.  2 


A  summary  of  our  conclusions  may  be  useful. 

1.  The  stance. 

a.  position  of  standing  diskobolos.     Fig.  13. 
or  b.    diskos  raised  in  left  hand  level  with  the  shoulder.     Fig.  12. 
or  c.    diskos  held  in  both  hands  level  with  waist.     PI.  II.,  Fig.  15. 
From    these  positions,  with  or  without  a  change  of  foot,  the  diskos  is 
swung  or  raised  to 

2.  Position  with  left  foot  forward  (usually)  and  diskos  in  both  hands. 

a.  extended  horizontally  to  the  front.     Figs.  3,  4,  etc. 
h.   raised  above  the  head.     Fig.  11. 

3.  The  diskos  is  swung  downwards,  resting  on  the  right  forearm.  Either 
before  or  in  the  course  of  the  swing 

a.  the  left  foot  is  drawn  back.     Fig.  5. 
or  h.   the  right  foot  is  advanced  (PI.  III.)  so  that  we  reach 

4.  The  position  of  Myron's  diskobolos.     Fig.  18. 

5.  At  the  beginning  of  the  swing  forward  the  body  is  straightened. 
Figs.  20,  21. 

6.  And  as  the  diskos  swings  down,  the  left  foot  is  vigorously  advanced. 
Figs.  22,  23. 

7.  Finally,  after  the  diskos  has  left  the  hand,  the  right  foot  is  again 
advanced.     Fig.  23. 

I  am  again  indebted  to  Mr.  Cecil  Smith  for  leave  to  publish  objects  in 
the  British  Museum.  To  Messrs.  J.  L.  Myres,  R.  C.  Bosanquet,  G.  F.  Hill, 
H.  B.  Walters,  and  Dr.  Zahn  my  obligations  are  many.  The  excellent  illus- 
tration of  Myron's  Diskobolos  is  reproduced  by  kind  permission  of  Messrs. 
Methuen  from  Mr.  Walters's  recently  published  '  Greek  Art.'  Mr.  G.  S.  Robertson 
has  kindly  given  me  the  benefit  of  his  experience  both  as  diskobolos  and  as 
Hellanodikes  in  the  revived  Olympic  games,  and  it  was  a  great  satisfaction  to 
me  to  find  that  the  conclusions  which  I  had  arrived  at  independently  from  the 
study  of  the  evidence  agreed  with  those  to  which  he  had  been  led  by  practice. 

The  extremely  interesting  fragment  of  a  Wiirzburg  alabastron  on 
PI.  III.  is  from  a  photograph  obtained  for  me  by  Mr.  Bosanquet  from 
Dr.  Wolters,  which  arrived  too  late  for  notice  in  its  proper  place.  The  artist 
lias  depicted  a  back  view  of  the  position  shown  in  Fig.  17.  The  legs 
unfortunately  are  missing,  the  light  patch  visible  below  the  arm  being  merely 
a  stain  on  the  background.  The  drawing  does  not  affect  any  of  the  views 
put  forward  above,  but  no  excuse  is  needed  for  the  insertion  of  so  original  a 

E.  Norman  Gardiner. 


From  what  sources  did  Herodotus  draw  the  materials  for  his  history  ? 
At  what  date  or  dates  did  he  compose  it  ?  These  inquiries  have  an  endless 
fascination  for  the  student  of  Herodotus,  which  is  not  lessened  by  the  fact 
that  they  admit  of  no  certain  answer.  The  combinations  which  will  be 
suggested  in  this  paper  have,  so  far  as  I  know,  not  been  suggested  before ; 
but  if,  as  is  extremely  likely,  they  have  already  been  made,  there  is  always  a 
certain  interest  in  the  fact  that  two  inquirers,  working  independently,  have 
come  to  the  same  conclusions. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  give  evidence  of  the  fact  that  Herodotus  himself 
was  highly  satisfied  with  his  own  sources  of  information  as  to  Persian  history, 
and  that  he  considered  he  could  speak  with  authority  upon  it.  (Cf.  e.g.  i.  95.) 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  give  evidence  for  the  view  that  Herodotus  had  on  some 
points  official  or  semi-official  Persian  information  :  e.g.  in  his  account 
of  the  satrapies  in  Bk.  III.,  of  the  Royal  Road  in  Bk.  V.,  and  of  the  Persian 
army  in  Bk.  VII. 

These  two  points  will  be  assumed,  and  also  that  Herodotus  is  a  trust- 
worthy witness,  that  he  reports  truly  what  he  has  heard,  without  exaggeration 
or  suppression,  and  that  he  had  some  idea  of  the  differing  value  of  various 
witnesses.  The  problem  then  is  to  find  a  Persian  source  from  which  Herodotus 
could  derive  : 

(1)  Information  that  seemed  to  him  trustworthy  as  to  the  rise  of  the 
Achaemenid  house,  and  its  establishment  on  the  throne. 

(2)  Official  details  as  to  the  resources  and  organization  of  the  Persian 
Empire  in  the  fifth  century. 

(3)  Definite  information  as  to  the  inner  court  circle  of  Susa.  The  story, 
e.g.  as  to  Amestris  and  the  wife  of  Masistes  (ix.  108  sq.)  is  told  by  Herodotus 
with  as  much  fulness  of  detail  and  with  as  complete  a  confidence,  as  the  story 
of  the  Philaidae  in  the  Chersonese  or  that  of  Alexander  of  Macedon. 

It  is  not  suggested  that  these  stories  and  others  like  them  are  to  be 
accepted  by  us  as  accurate,  but  only  that  Herodotus  considered  he  had 
full  grounds  for  relating  in  detail  events  and  motives  which  would  be 
unknown  to  ordinary  informants,  outside  of  court  circles. 

Now  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Herodotus,  when  himself  in  the 
East,  ever  penetrated  into  the  government  offices,  much  less  up  the  back-stairs 
of  the  court.     Even  apart  from  his  ignorance  of  all  languages  but  Greek,  he 

38  J.  WELLS 

was  only  in  the  position  of  an  ordinary  traveller,  seeing  the  wonders  of  the 
great  king's  realm  on  sufferance.  No  Persian  grandee,  still  less  one  of  the 
intimate  court  circle,  would  have  unbosomed  himself  confidentially  to  an  obscure 
Greek,  travelling  in  the  company  of  merchants,  and  not  improbably  engaged 
in  business  on  his  own  account. 

It  may  be  maintained  that  Herodotus'  informants  were  his  own  country- 
men, who  were  either  treading  as  exiles  the  antechambers  of  Susa  or  engaged 
there  professionally,  as  was  Democedes,  or  Apollonides  (Ctesias,  29,  42),1  the 
immoral  physician  from  Cos.  This  seems,  however,  less  likely,  having  regard 
to  two  points  : 

(1)  The  accuracy  of  Herodotus'  information  as  to  Persian  names,  and  the 
fulness  of  his  details  on  many  matters  which  would  be  quite  outside  of  the 
sphere  of  interest  of  an  ordinary  Greek.  The  information  we  get  from  Ctesias, 
the  Greek  court  physician  of  the  next  generation,  does  not  give  us  a  high  idea 
of  the  sources  of  information  open  to,  or  of  the  accuracy  of,  the  Greek 
hangers-on  of  the  Great  King. 

(2)  Herodotus'  own  tone  is  always  that  of  one  who  speaks  with 
authority,  and  who  considers  he  has  sure  sources  of  information.  Of  course 
this  second  argument  will  be  worthless  to  those  who  look  on  Herodotus  as  an 
inquirer  prepared  to  accept  any  information,  and  prepared  also  to  maintain 
it  was  the  best  information,  simply  because  he  had  it. 

The  assumption  that  Herodotus  had  real  and  special  sources  of  informa- 
tion as  to  Persian  affairs,  and  the  still  more  probable  assumption  that  he  did 
not  find  these  when  himself  in  the  East,  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
Herodotus  must  have  met  nearer  home  persons  qualified  to  give  him  accurate 
and  detailed  information  on  Oriental  matters,  under  circumstances  which 
permitted  him  to  question  them  carefully :  such  a  source  of  information  it  is 
usually  supposed  that  he  found  in  Demaratus  (cf.  Matzat,  Hermes  vi.  p.  479 
seq.,  and  others),  who  may  well  have  furnished  Herodotus  with  many  of  his 
details  as  to  Xerxes'  invasion.  The  object  of  this  paper  is  to  suggest  another 
and  even  more  important  source  for  his  inner  history  of  the  Persian 

The  passage  in  Herodotus  is  of  considerable  importance  ;  he  ends  Bk.  III. 
{c.  160)  with  the  words  '  the  son  of  this  Megabyzus  was  Zopyrus,  who  went 
over  to  Athens  as  a  deserter  from  the  Persians.' 

The  date  of  this  desertion,  and  its  significance  will  be  considered  later  ; 
first  it  is  necessary  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  Zopyrus,  if  Herodotus  really 
met  him,  is  exactly  the  informant  who  satisfies  the  conditions  of  our  inquiry, 
for  he  was  one  who  was  certainly  able  to  give  Herodotus  the  information 
desired,  and  one  moreover  who  was  likely  to  give  it  just  in  the  form  in  which 
Herodotus  reproduces  it. 

1  The    references  to  Ctesias  are  ^iven  to   C.  inaccessible;  Valueless  an  t  tie  works  of  Ctesias 

sedition,  published  with  the  history  of  are,  a  critical  edition  in  a   cheap  and  handy 

Herodotu    i  Paris.    F.  Didot,  1844).     This  seems  form  would  be  of  greal  convenience  to  students 

the  edition  must  generally  used,  but  it  is  very  of  Graeco-Oriental  history. 


The  reasons  for  holding  this  are  obvious: 

(1)  Zopyrus  belonged  to  the  inner  circle  of  the  Persian  Court.  He  was 
tlic  grandson  of  Amestris,  the  terrible  wife  of  Xerxes,  and  the  nephew  of  that 
monarch.  Hence  he  would  have  known  intimately  the  whole  dark  history 
of  court  intrigues,  and  his  story  as  told  us  by  Ctesias  (especially  2!».  42 — 3) 
corresponds  exactly  to  the  picture  of  cruelty  and  lust  on  which  Herodotus  just 
lifts  the  curtain. 

(2)  He  was  the  son  of  Megabyzus,  one  of  Xerxes'  six  generals  in  chief 
against  Greece  (vii.  82 — 121).  Hence  he  was  in  a  position  to  know  the 
full  details  of  the  Persian  army  list,  which  Herodotus  gives  us  at  such 
length  in  Bk.  VII.  Moreover  this  connexion  would  give  him  the  detailed 
knowledge  of  the  stages  of  the  Royal  Road  which  Herodotus  reproduces 
from  some  Persian  source  in  Bk.  V.  (cc.  52 — 3). 

It  may  be  added  that  the  arrogant  suggestion  of  an  attack  on  Susa, 
which  accompanies  the  account  of  the  Royal  Road  (v.  49),  is  quite  in  keeping 
with  the  character  of  a  Persian  prince  whose  Hellenic  sympathies  have  led  him 
to  desert  his  country.  It  is  of  course  quite  out  of  place  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Ionian  Aristagoras,  who  wanted  only  defence  against  the  Great  King. 

(3)  His  grandfather  had  been  governor  of  Babylon,  and  of  the  resources 
of  this  satrapy  Herodotus  had  especially  full  information  (i.  192,  iii.  92);  it 
must  be  added,  however,  that  Herodotus  gives  these  as  they  were  under  the 
satraps  that  succeeded  Zopyrus. 

It  will  be  seen  then  that  Zopyrus  had  special  facilities  for  giving  official 
information  on  two  of  the  points  (i.e.  the  Army  and  the  Royal  Road)  where 
Herodotus  preserves  it,  and  that  on  the  third  point,  the  organization  of  the 
Empire,  he  had  also  some  special  qualifications  for  giving  information,  though 
not  to  so  marked  an  extent  as  in  the  two  previous  cases.  When  we  turn  from 
Herodotus'  information  as  to  the  present  resources  of  Persia  to  his  accounts 
of  its  past  history,  Zopyrus  again  fits  in  with  the  requirements  of  our  inquiry. 
Herodotus  of  course  had  far  too  much  information  as  to  Persian  history  to 
have  derived  it  exclusively  from  any  one  source.  But  on  two  important 
episodes  at  least  Zopyrus  was  a  particularly  qualified  witness. 

(1)  Herodotus'  account  of  the  conspiracy  against  the  Pseudo-Smerdis  is 
in  marked  contrast  to  that  of  Ctesias  in  the  accuracy  of  its  name-,  and 
(perhaps  it  may  be  added)  in  the  general  correctness  of  its  outline. 

Now  the  grandfather  and  the  namesake  of  the  deserting  Zopyrus  had 
been  one  of  the  Seven  Conspirators,  and  the  story  of  that  crisis  in  Persian 
history  must  have  been  a  tradition  in  his  family,  and  Herodotus  may  well 
have  heard  it  from  him.  This  supposition  throws  considerable  light  on  one 
of  the  most  disputed  passages  in  Herodotus.  If  we  assume  that  the  historian 
obtained  from  Zopyrus  the  famous  account  of  the  debate  of  the  Seven  as  to 
possible  forms  of  government,  we  have  at  once  an  explanation  of  the'  curious 
and  surprising  insistency  with  which  the  historian  maintains  the  accuracy  of 
his  version  (iii.  80,  vi.  43),  and  also  of  its  very  un-Oriental  character.  Modern 
critics  rightly  agree  with  the  sceptics  of  Herodotus'  own  day  in  doubting  the 
authenticity   of   the  speeches  said    then    to   have    been   delivered.       Full    of 

40  J.  WELLS 

interest  as  these  speeches  are,  they  are  interesting  as  giving  us  Greek  political 
ideas  of  the  fifth  century,  and  not  as  reproducing  the  sentiments  of  Persian 
grandees  of  the  sixth  century.  But  the  colouring  is  not  that  of  Herodotus 
himself:  it  is  clearly  derived  from  some  informant,  whom  he  considers  of 
special  value.  If  we  attribute  the  whole  version  to  an  occidentalized 
Persian,  who  was  yet  the  grandson  of  one  of  the  conspirators,  we  have  a  full 
and  sufficient  explanation  at  once  of  Herodotus'  mistaken  confidence  and  of 
the  curiously  misplaced  colouring  which  has  offended  critics  from  Herodotus' 
own  day  to  our  own."2 

Again  if  we  suppose  that  Zopyrus  was  Herodotus'  informant  as  to  the 
conspiracy,  we  get  a  reasonable  explanation  of  the  serious  blunder  with  which 
Herodotus  concludes  his  story.  The  historian  is  ignorant  of  the  real  claim  of 
Darius  to  the  throne,  and  makes  his  winning  it  the  result  of  a  trick  (iii.  84). 
This  perversion  is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  from  a  Persian  whose  father 
and  himself  had  alike  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the  Achaemenid  family. 
If  anything  is  clear  as  to  the  inner  history  of  Persia  at  this  time,  it  is  that 
certain  noble  houses  resented  the  predominance  of  one  royal  family,  and  that 
Megabyzus  was  conspicuous  for  this  independence.  I  must  return  to  this 
point  later,  but  we  may  notice  the  same  colouring  in  the  remark  with  which 
Herodotus  introduces  his  story  of  Cyrus  :  '  Following  the  report  of  some  of  the 
Persians,  those"  I  mean  who  do  not  desire  to  glorify  the  history  of  Cyrus,  but 
to  speak  that  which  is  in  fact  true  '  (i.  95).  The  story  that  follows  corre- 
sponds to  this  introduction  :  Herodotus  ignores  the  royal  descent  of  Cyrus 
from  Achaemenes,  although  in  Bk.  VII.  11  he  has  rightly  recorded  the 
names  of  the  Achaemenid  family.  Herodotus'  informant  knew  the  facts  as 
to  Darius'  accession,  but  did  not  choose  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Greek 
historian  to  them. 

The  other  episode  of  Persian  history  which  here  especially  concerns 
us  is  the  story  of  the  second  capture  of  Babylon  in  Bk.  Ill  (cc.  153  seq.). 
It  will  be  obvious  to  anyone  that  this  account  as  a  whole  might  well  have 
been  derived  from  the  grandson  of  the  man  who  is  the  hero  of  the  story,  and 
there  are  certain  points  in  it  which  look  like  a  special  family  tradition, 
e.g.  the  details  as  to  the  mule  prodigy  in  c.  153,  and  as  to  the  special  honours 
to  Zopyrus  in  c.  160 — '  no  one  of  the  Persians  surpassed  him  (i.e.  Zopyrus)  in 
good  service,  either  of  those  who  came  after  or  of  those  who  had  gone  before, 
excepting  Cyrus  alone.' 

Of  the  historic  value  of  the  story,  I  shall  speak  at  the  end  of  this  paper. 
So  far  I  have  tried  to  show  that  Zopyrus  the  deserter  is  exactly  the  informant 

-  I  submit  that  this  explanation  of  the  well  Protagoras.      His   theory  has  not  a    scrap   of 

known  difficulty  as  to  these  speeches  is  tar  more  evidence  in  its  favour,  and  E.  Meyer  (Forsch.  i. 

satisfactory  than    the  view  that   sees  in    them  201-2)  well   says    '  Maass    makes   Herodotus  a 

an    instance    of    the    composite    character    of  simpleton,    if    he     imagines     that    he     could 

Herodotus'  work.    Maass,  e.g.  {Hermes  xxii.  581  impose  on  the  public  as  historical  facts  inven- 

seq.),    on  the  strength  of   a  supposed   parallel  tions  of  his  good  friend  Protagoras.'    Moreover 

in  Isocrates,  argues  that  the  historian  has  here  the  theory  ignores  Herodotus'  insistence  on  his 

introduced  some  of  the  'negative  arguments'  own  accuracy,  which  is  surely  a  most  important 

(KcnafidAAoi>Tts    Ac/701)    of    his    contemporary  point. 


from  whom  Herodotus  might  have  derived  important  passages  in  his  work, 
and  that  certain  features  in  the  narrative  are  more  easily  explained,  if  we 
suppose  he  did  so  derive  them,  than  on  any  other  supposition. 

There  is  one  more  passage  in  Herodotus  which  may  well  have  come 
from  Zopyrus,  i.e.  the  account  of  the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  the  Persian 
Sataspes  to  circumnavigate  Africa  (iv.  43).  This  account  presents  just  the 
same  features  as  some  of  those  which  have  been  already  considered,  Le.  there 
is  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  relationships  of  the  inner  court  circle  of 
Susa,  and  of  the  cruelty  and  lust  which  prevailed  there.  The  offence  of 
Sataspes  was  committed  against  the  daughter  of  Zopyrus  the  deserter,  and 
may  well  have  been  one  of  the  causes  which  inflamed  his  hatred  and 
jealousy  of  the  Achaemenidae.  Some  suggest,  however,  that  Herodotus' 
source  here  is  revealed  in  his  concluding  words  :  he  describes  how  the 
servant  of  Sataspes  after  his  master's  death  escaped  to  Samos,  and  there  was 
robbed  by  a  Samian  whose  name  Herodotus  knew,  though  he  considerately 
suppresses  it.  This  part  of  the  story  must  have  been  heard  by  Herodotus 
in  Samos,  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  adds  it  as  confirming  from  an 
independent  Samian  source  what  he  had  himself  learned  from  one  who  was 
in  the  most  intimate  way  concerned  in  the  story. 

But  it  is  nowr  necessary  to  consider  if  Herodotus  was  likely  to  have  met 
the  younger  Zopyrus  or  indeed  could  have  met  him. 

To  answer  this  question  we  must  consider  the  date  of  the  Persian's 
desertion.  All  our  information  as  to  this  is  derived  from  Ctesias  (29. 
33-43).  Now  that  author  seems,  speaking  generally,  about  the  most 
untrustworthy  of  our  ancient  authorities,  and  in  his  account  of  the  events 
that  now  concern  us,  he  is  clearly  wrong  on  some  points,  e.g.  he  contradicts 
Thucydides  as  to  the  name  of  the  place  where  Inarus  and  the  Greeks  in 
Egypt  offered  their  last  resistance  to  the  Persians  :  he  calls  it  Byblus  (29.  34), 
Thuc.  (i.  109)  calls  it  Prosopitis. 

But  it  is  obvious  that  Ctesias  had  means  of  knowing  the  inner  history  of 
the  Persian  court,  however  badly  he  used  those  means  at  times ;  he  was 
physician  there  in  the  generation  after  the  events  he  is  describing ;  and,  as  he 
had  this  department  of  his  subject  mainly  to  himself,  he  was  not  liable  to 
be  misled  in  his  details  as  to  court-scandals  by  the  burning  desire  to  con- 
tradict Herodotus  which  was  so  misleading  to  him  in  his  account  of  more 
important  events.  And  his  narrative  as  to  Megabyzus  and  Zopyrus  is 
consistent  in  its  main  outlines  with  what  we  know  elsewhere,  and  is  confirmed 
in  one  important  point  by  an  undesigned  coincidence  with  Herodotus.  Ctesias 
makes  Megabyzus  die  at  the  age  of  76  (29.  41) ;  this  advanced  age  agrees 
with  Herodotus'  account  of  that  veteran,  and  especially  with  the  detail  (iv. 
43)  that  he  had  a  granddaughter  of  marriageable  age  before  465  B.C. 

Assuming  then,  as  is  generally  done,  that  Ctesias  may  be  depended  on 
for  these  personal  details,  we  have  the  following  data  for  determining  the 
chronology  of  the  family  of  Zopyrus.  Megabyzus  reduced  Egypt,  and 
received  the  submission  on  terms  of  Inarus  and  the  Greeks  in  454,  probably 
early  in  the  summer  of  that  year  (so  Busolt,  iii.  p.  330).     The  vengeance  of 

42  J.  WELLS 

Amestris  was  delayed-for  five  years,  but  in  the  end  the  safe  conduct  was  violated, 
Inarus  was  impaled  and  the  Greek  prisoners  were  executed.  This  must  have 
happened  then  about  450.  Megabyzus,  angry  at  the  violation  of  the  terms 
arranged  by  him,  proceeded  to  revolt  in  his  satrapy  of  Syria,  and  fought  two 
campaigns  against  his  royal  master.  It  may  well  be  that  the  renewed  attack 
of  the  Greeks  on  Cyprus  under  Cimon  (spring  of  449)  was  connected  with 
this  civil  war  in  the  Persian  Empire,  and  that  the  reconciliation  of  the 
rebel  satrap  with  Artaxerxes,  which  followed  in  the  year  448,  was  a  part  of 
the  same  negotiations  which  led  to  the  agreement  (whether  definitely 
concluded  or  simply  tacitly  understood)  loosely  called  the  'Peace  of  Callias,' 
or  the  '  Peace  of  Cimon.' 

It  is  surely  permissible  to  conjecture  that  the  Greek  victories  had  their 
natural  effect  at  the  Persian  court  and  led  to  division  of  opinion  there  ;  one 
section  of  its  grandees  would  urge  that  Persian  policy  should  be  modified, 
and  that  the  victorious  Occidentals  should  be  conciliated  ;  another  section 
would  be  confirmed  by  disaster  in  the  old  national  traditions.  If  such  a 
division  took  place,  Megabyzus  was  clearly  the  head  of  the  Hellenizing 
party  in  Persia :  this  is  seen  in  his  conciliatory  attitude  in  Egypt,  and  agrees 
with  the  story  of  Ctesias  (in  itself  improbable)  that  he  had  declined  to  attack 
Delphi  when  ordered  by  Xerxes  (20.  27).  The  dc  facto  suspension  of  hostilities 
between  Athens  and  the  Great  King  marked  the  triumph  of  the  policy  of 
Megabyzus  ;  but  so  far  as  he  personally  was  concerned,  the  Great  King  was  not 
disposed  to  overlook  his  independent  spirit,  and  the  too  successful  general, 
having  once  more  offended  Artaxerxes,  by  interference  in  his  hunting,  was 
banished  for  five  years  (29.  40-41).  This  banishment  may  be  conjectured 
to  have  taken  place  before  the  end  of  448,  in  which  case  the  final  restoration 
of  Megabyzus  to  favour  would  fall  about  443. 

Ctesias  gives  no  hint  how  soon  his  death  followed,  but  goes  on  to  tell  of 
the  misconduct  of  his  widow  Amytis  and  her  lingering  illness  and  death. 
We  can  only  guess  at  the  length  of  time  required  for  these  events,  which 
were  immediately  followed  by  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus,  but  they  can  easily 
be  fitted  into  three  years,  and  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus  will  then  fall  in  440.  This 
year  is  probable  in  itself,  for  it  is  obvious  from  Thucydides'  (i.  115)  account  of 
the  Samian  revolt  that  the  war  party  at  the  Persian  court  had  the  upper 
hand  in  that  year.  That  there  was  a  connexion  between  the  desertion  of 
Zopyrus  and  the  general  relations  of  Athens  and  Persia  is  not  generally 
recognized  ;  but  it  is  probable  in  itself,  and  it  is  confirmed  by  the  parallel 
events  of  the  next  generation,  when,  if  we  may  trust  Andocides  (de  Pace  29 ; 
cf.  Busolt,  III.  1354,  1417),  hostilities  with  the  Great  King  were  precipitated 
by  the  Athenian  alliance  with  the  rebel  Amorges  in  Caria  (cf.  Th.  viii.  5). 
Perhaps  the  relation  may  be  one  of  cause,  and  not  of  effect  as  has  been 
suggested  above,  and  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus  may  have  led  to  the  intrigues 
of  Pissuthnes  (Th.  i.  115)  against  Athens,  not  been  caused  by  them.  In  this 
case  we  should  have  to  antedate  the  desertion  by  a  year,  i.e.  place  it  about 
4  H .  The  point  cannot  be  settled,  but  either  date,  441  or  440,  can  be  fitted  in 
with  the  narrative  of  Ctesias. 


The  sequel  of  that  narrative  confirms  materially  the  political  im- 
portance which  has  been  assigned  above  to  the  conduct  of  Zopyrus.  He 
went,  we  are  told  (Ctes.  29.  43),  with  the  Athenians  against  Gauuus  in  Caria, 
and  there  met  his  death  when  endeavouring  to  negociate  the  surrender  of 
that  town  to  the  Athenians.  This  expedition  most  probably  was  connected 
with  the  (roubles  caused  by  the  Samian  revolt;  Pericles  (i.  116)  himself 
made  a  demonstration  in  the  direction  of  Caunus  in  440,  and  we  know  from 
the  tribute  lists  thai  there  was  something  like  a  general  revolt  in  tin-  '  <  'avian 
quarter'  of  the  Athenian  Empire  at  this  period  (Busolt,  iii.  554).  So  tar  as 
concerns  Zopyrus  and  Caunus,  we  know  (if  we  may  trust  Ctesias"  that  Caunus 
remained  for  a  short  time  under  the  authority  of  the  Great  King,  for  Amestris 
was  able  to  impale  the  unlucky  Caunian  whose  hands  had  cast  the  deadly  stone 
against  her  traitorous  grandson.  But  Caunus  was  again  under  Athenian 
authority  in  436  {LG.  I.  -44;,  when  it  figures  at  the  head  of  the  list  of  the 
'  Ionian  Tribute  '  payers.  Hence  the  death  of  Zopyrus  must  certainly  fall 
before  this  year.  Perhaps  we  may  suggest  that  the  cruelty  of  Amestris  worked 
for  Athens  more  effectually  than  the  arms  of  Zopyrus  :  it  was  not  likely  to 
stimulate  loyalty  to  the  Great  King,  when  his  subjects  were  impaled  for  too 
successful  a  resistance  to  a  traitor  because  that  traitor  was  of  royal  blood.  It 
seems  therefore  that  we  may  date  the  death  of  Zopyrus  with  fair  confidence  at 
the  end  of  440  or  early  in  439.  It  must  come  in  before  the  reduction  of  Samos, 
and  the  restitution  of  the  status-quo  with  Persia.  Pericles,  then  at  the 
height  of  his  influence,  was  not  likely  after  this  to  provoke  Persia  by  reckless 
expeditions  against  Caria  (cf.  Busolt,  iii.  544-5). 

To  sum  up  then  this  part  of  the  argument.  The  desertion  of  Zopyrus 
was  not  a  mere  personal  freak  :  it  was  the  act  of  a  Persian  prince  whose  family 
had  shown  Hellenic  prejudices  before,  and  was  connected  with  political  events 
of  great  importance:  it  probably  took  place  in  441  or  440,  and  his  death 
followed  within  a  year. 

Before  discussing  the  bearing  of  these  dates  on  the  life  of  Herodotus. 
I  must  first  refer  to  two  other  (and  varying)  dates  which  have  been  assigned 
for  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus.  Rawlinson  (ad  loc.)  says  :  '  this  is  probably  the 
latest  event  mentioned  by  Herodotus.  It  is  mentioned  by  Ctesias  almost 
immediately  before  the  death  of  Artaxerxes,  and  so  belongs  most  likely  to  the 
year  426  or  425.'  The  'and  so  '  begs  the  whole  question  :  there  is  no  causal 
connexion  between  what  Ctesias  says  of  Zopyrus  and  what  he  says  of 
Artaxerxes.  And  it  is  most  difficult  to  fit  an  Athenian  expedition  against 
Caria  into  the  years  426  and  425.  And  moreover  had  Herodotus  kuown  of  the 
death  of  Zopyrus,  he  would  almost  certainly  have  mentioned  it  :  and  it  seems 
that  he  must  have  known,  had  it  happened  after  his  return  to  Athens  about 
430 :  this  point,  however,  will  be  dealt  with  later. 

Kirchhoff  refers  incidentally  to  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus  in  his  famous 
paper  'Die  Entstehungszeit  des  Herodotischen  Geschiehtwerks '  {Abh.  d. 
K.  A.  d<r  W.  Berlin,  1878,  p.  16),  and  calculates  it.  from  the  data  given  by 
Ctesias,  as  falling  between  445  and  431  (which  is  obviously  true),  but  much 
'  nearer  the  latter  date  than   the   former;'  this   latter  statement  is.  I  think  I 

44  J.   WELLS 

have  shown,  quite  unproven.  Kirchhoff  uses  the  point  simply  to  prove  that 
Herodotus  wrote  the  end  of  Bk.  III.  at  a  later  period  than  the  first  two  and 
a  half  books  ;  the  desertion,  he  argues,  is  one  of  the  events  of  which  Herodotus 
was  not  aware  when  he  went  to  Thurii,  and  of  which  he  heard  on  his  return 
to  Athens  about  432.  But  Kirchhoff'  quite  fails  to  consider  the  connexion 
of  the  Zopyrus  episode  with  the  general  course  of  events,  and  he  omits  also 
to  notice  what  seems  to  be  by  far  its  more  important  bearing  on  the  question 
of  the  date  when  Herodotus  composed  his  work. 

It  is  this  point  omitted  by  Kirchhoff  that  must  now  be  considered. 
Herodotus  knows  half  of  the  story  told  by  Ctesias,  but  not  the  whole  of  it :  he 
gives  us  the  desertion  of  Zopyrus,  but  not  his  death  in  the  Athenian  service. 
Now  this  might  well  be  thought  to  be  a  far  more  significant  omission  than  any 
of  the  others  in  Herodotus'  history  on  which  Kirchhoff  lays  such  great  stress. 
I  cannot  think  that,  if  Herodotus  had  known,  when  he  wrote  Book  III.  160,  the 
tragic  end  of  Zopyrus'  chequered  career,  he  would  have  omitted  to  chronicle 
it.  It  presents  an  exact  parallel  to  the  story  of  Sophanes  at  Plataea  (ix.  75) 
or  of  the  diviner  Hegesistratus  (ix.  37),  in  both  of  which  cases  Herodotus  tells 
the  story  of  their  deaths,  though  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  context  in  which  he 
introduces  them.     Other  instances  could  be  given,  but  these  are  sufficient. 

If,  however,  we  suppose  that  Herodotus  left  Athens  for  the  West  in  440, 
it  becomes  rriuch  easier  to  understand  why  no  record  is  given  of  the  subse- 
quent story  of  Zopyrus.  Moreover  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  can  be 
suggested  why  the  historian  should  have  started  on  his  travels  again  just  at 
this  time. 

If  anything  can  be  stated  as  certain  as  to  the  life  and  interests  of 
Herodotus,  it  is  that  he  had  a  close  connexion  with  Samos,  and  a  great 
affection  for  that  island  and  its  inhabitants.  Samos  plays  a  larger  part  in  his 
history  than  any  other  Greek  city  except  Athens  and  perhaps  Sparta,  and  the 
historian  is  invariably  a  '  little  blind  to  their  faults,'  and  '  very  kind  to  their 
virtues.'  Hence  it  is  surely  not  carrying  conjecture  far  to  suppose  that 
Herodotus  was  deeply  grieved  to  see  Athens  and  Samos  at  deadly  enmity, 
and  his  own  friend,  the  poet  Sophocles,  in  command  against  his  former 
Ionian  home.  We  may  therefore  date  with  some  confidence  Herodotus' 
departure  for  Thurii  as  taking  place  in  440. 

It  is  true  that  Strabo  (p.  656)  says  that  Herodotus  '  took  part  in  the 
colony  to  Thurii,'  and  that  Suidas  (s.v.  'HpoSoTo?)  says  he  went  e?  to  Sovpcov 
airoLKi^ofxevov  inrb  tow  ' AOrjvaccov — '  when  it  was  being  colonized  by  the 
Athenians  ; '  but  even  if  it  were  necessary  to  attach  great  importance  to  the 
exact  words  of  these  authorities — and  in  the  case  of  Suidas  at  any  rate,  the 
notice  of  Herodotus  is  full  of  demonstrable  inaccuracies — their  words  are 
quite  consistent  with  the  view  that  he  joined  the  colony  three  or  four  years 
after  it  had  been  sent  out.  No  one  would  hesitate  to  count  John  Harvard 
among  the  '  founders  of  New  England,'  although  he  did  not  sail  with  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  in  1620. 

The  connexion  of  Herodotus  and  Zopyrus  then  may  be  briefly  conjectured 
to  be  as  follows.     Zopyrus  arriving  in  Athens  in  441  or  440  would  naturally 


come  into  contact  with  one  who  like  himself  had  been  a  Persian  subject,  and 
who  knew  far  more  about  things  oriental  than  any  other  Athenian  of  his 
time.  We  can  imagine  the  historian  eagerly  drawing  from  this  noble  Persian 
full  details  as  to  official  arrangements  and  as  to  court  secrets,  which  he  had 
failed  to  obtain  when  himself  on  his  travels  in  the  East.  We  need  only 
suppose  that  they  spent  some  months  together  at  Athens;  then  Herodotus 
sailed  for  the  west,  to  avoid  seeing  the  end  of  a  struggle  between  two  cities, 
both  of  which  he  had  reason  to  love,  while  Zopyrus  again  turned  his  face 
eastward  to  meet  his  death.  When  Herodotus  returned  again  to  Athens, 
events  had  taken  quite  a  new  turn;  and  we  can  well  understand  why 
Herodotus  never  completed  his  story  of  Zopyrus,  even  if  we  accept  the 
conjecture  that  he  owed  to  him  much  important  and  valuable  information. 

Before  I  end  this  paper,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  consider  the  accuracy 
of  one  important  section  of  the  information  which  Herodotus,  as  we  suppose, 
derived  from  Zopyrus,  i.e.  the  episode  of  the  capture  of  Babylon  which  ends 
Bk.  III.  It  is  unnecessary  to  recapitulate  the  well  known  details  in  Hero- 
dotus as  to  the  desperate  resistance  of  Babylon,  the  hopeless  position  of 
Darius,  and  the  self-devotion  by  which  the  elder  Zopyrus  saved  his  king 
from  a  most  difficult  situation.  I  propose  only  to  consider  the  two  great 
criticisms  which  are  brought  against  Herodotus'  narrative  : 

(1)  It  is  maintained  by  many  that  he  has  completely  misunderstood  his 
authorities  and  that  he  ascribes  to  Darius  a  siege  which  really  was  carried  out 
by  Xerxes. 

(2)  The  whole  story  of  the  self-devotion  of  Zopyrus  is  rejected  as  a  fable. 
These  two  criticisms  must  be  discussed  separately. 

The  first  criticism  is  practically  that  urged  long  ago  by  Ctesias :  he,  we 
are  told,  related  of  Megabyzus  the  story  told  by  Herodotus  of  the  elder 
Zopyrus.  Sayce  (ad  loc.)  seems  to  attach  some  weight  to  the  evidence  of 
Ctesias ;  but  no  one  is  likely,  I  think,  to  be  seriously  influenced  by  Ctesias  as  a 
witness  against  Herodotus  or  by  Sayce  as  a  critic  of  him. 

Other  historians  who  ascribe  the  siege  to  Xerxes  are  Noldeke  (doubtfully 
in  E.B.  xviii.  p.  572)  and  Lehmann  ( Woch.  fur  Klass  Phil,  1900,  p.  963). 
The  reasons  are  : — 

(1)  It  is  impossible  to  fit  a  siege  of  '  20  months'  (the  duration  given  by 
Herodotus  iii.  153)  into  the  narrative  of  the  Behistun  Inscription. 

(2)  Lehmann  tries  to  fit  in  Herodotus'  '20  months'  with  the  dates 
of  Babylonian  inscriptions  of  the  time  of  Xerxes.  But  his  attempt,  though 
ingenious,  will  not  convince  anyone  who  does  not  wish  beforehand  to  be 
convinced.  There  are  at  least  two  uncertain  quantities  in  his  equation. 
In  fact  the  evidence  from  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  is  actually  used  by 
Maspero  (Hist.  Anc.  iii.  p.  077,  n.)  on  the  opposite  side  to  Lehmann, 
i.e.  to  support  Herodotus. 

(3)  The  third  argument  is  that  the  cruelty  of  the  victor  (Herodotus  iii. 
159)  after  taking  Babylon  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  character  of  Xerxes  than 
with  that  of  Darius. 

It  will  be  obvious  that  of  these  three  arguments  only  the  first  is  worth 

46  J.  WELLS 

anything.  If  the  Behistun  Inscription  contradicts  Herodotus,  no  one  will 
maintain  his  accuracy  against  it.  But  does  it  contradict  Herodotus  ?  Leh- 
mann  (ut  sup.)  and  E.  Meyer  (G.  des  A.  i.  614)  say  that  it  does  ;  Duncker 
and  Maspero  (ut  sup.)  say  that  it  does  not.  I  will  quote  the  words  of  the 
inscription,  (col.  II.  par.  I.)  '  says  Darius  the  King.  Then  Nidintabelus  with 
the  horsemen  faithful  to  him  fled  to  Babylon.  Then  I  went  to  Babylon.  By 
the  grace  of  Ormazd  I  both  took  Babylon  and  seized  that  Nidintabelus. 
Then  I  slew  that  Nidintabelus  at  Babylon.' 

So  far  the  narrative  goes  decidedly  against  Herodotus.  Taken  by  itself 
it  would  seem  to  imply  a  speedy  capture  of  the  rebel  city.  But  the  next 
paragraph  points  as  decidedly  the  other  way.  '  While  I  was  at  Babylon,  these 
are  the  countries  which  revolted  against  me  :  Persia,  Susiana,  Media,  Assyria, 
Armenia,  Parthia,  Margiana,Sattagydia,  Sacia.'  Clearly  the  siege  of  Babylon  was 
a  long  business.  It  is  not  necessary  to  accept  Herodotus'  '  twenty  months,' 
though  they  may  be  accurate  ;  but  surely  it  is  unreasonable  to  reject  his  whole 
story,  and  suppose  that  he  committed  so  gross  a  blunder,  and  made  such  a 
foolish  confusion,  as  to  an  important  event  that  happened  only  some  forty 
years  before  his  birth. 

On  the  whole  then  the  evidence  against  Herodotus'  accuracy  on  this 
point  seems  quite  insufficient  to  outweigh  the  a  'priori  probability  that  he 
knew  what  he  was  writing  about. 

With  regard  to  the  story  of  the  self-mutilation  of  Zopyrus,  I  hope  that 
I  shall  not  be  thought  unduly  credulous  when  I  say  that  it  seems  to  me, 
though  no  doubt  exaggerated,  to  contain  a  s  >lid  basis  of  truth. 

The  arguments  against  it  are  : — 

(1)  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Behistun  Inscription.  If  it  had  been 
ever  so  true,  would  it  have  been  mentioned  ?  It  was  much  more  creditable 
to  Darius  the  king  to  take  towns  by  the  '  grace  of  Ormazd  '  than  by  the 
mutilation  of  Zopyrus. 

(2)  But  it  is  urged,  no  mutilated  man  could  have  been  set  over  the 
province  of  Babylon.  We  need  not  take  Herodotus  too  literally  in  his 
details;  Zopyrus  probably  made  himself  '  noseless  '  and  '  earless'  pretty  much 
in  the  sense  in  which 

'  Earless  on  high  stood  unabashed  Defoe.' 

But  I  have  no  doubt  he  gave  himself  some  permanent  scars.  Who  would 
have  been  offended  by  these  but  the  Babylonians,  whose  feelings  Darius  was 
not  very  likely  to  spare  ? 

(3)  But  it  will  be  urged  the  story  is  a  well-known  legend.  Sir  H. 
Etawlinsorj  writes:  'The  story  told  by  Polyaenus  (and  Herodotus)  is  in  its 
minutesl  features  identical  with  a  certain  standard  oriental  tale  told  by  the 
bards  of  Persia,  India,  and  Cashmeer.'  But  all  these  stories  are  long 
subsequent  to  Herodotus,  and  may  well  be  as  much. echoes  from  his  narrative 
as  is  that  of  Livy  as  to  the  self-mutilation  of  Sextus  Tarquinius  (i.  54). 

Polyaenus  tells  us  that  Zopyrus  was  copying  the  seltVdevotion  of  a  Sacan 
Risaces  who  had  tried  to  destroy  in  this  way  the  army  of  Darius.     This  story 


is  quite  independent  of  Herodotus,  and  may  be  held  to  confirm  his  narrative 
as  least  as  much  as  to  refute  it. 

For  the  story  in  its  main  outlines  it  may  be  urged  : — 

(1)  That  apart  from  Herodotus  and  Polyaenus,  it  is  told  by  Frontinus 
(Stmt.  iii.  :>,  who  [nits  it  in  the  time  of  Cyrus)  and  Justin  (i.  10).  Ctesias 
obviously  told  the  same  story,  though  in  his  violent  antagonism  to  Herodotus 
he  misdated  it. 

(2)  That  Zopyrus  was  made  ruler  of  Babylon  is  an  undoubted  fact. 

(3)  If  we  can  accept  the  story,  it  suits  its  context  well.  Darius  was  in 
a  hopeless  position,  with  an  impregnable  town  to  capture  and  an  empire 
falling  into  greater  revolt  every  day.  The  self-devotion  of  Zopyrus  had  an 
adequate  motive  and  an  adequate  result. 

The  second  and  easy  capture  of  Babylon  by  Intaphernes  (Beh.  Inscrip. 
iii.  14)  is  easily  explicable.  The  walls  of  the  town  had  been  breached  in  all 
directions,  and  it  was  about  as  indefensible  as  Liege  in  Scott's  Quentin 

I  am  conscious  that  in  maintaining  the  accuracy  of  Herodotus  as  to  the 
siege  of  Babylon,  I  am  distracting  attention  from  the  main  argument  of  this 
paper.  The  two  points  are  only  partially  connected.  It  is  quite  possible  to 
accept  the  view  that  Herodotus  derived  important  information  from  the 
younger  Zopyrus,  even  if  we  also  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  convict 
Herodotus  of  undue  credulity  in  accepting  the  whole  of  his  stories. 

The  first  part  of  my  paper  I  am  conscious  consists  of  a  series  of 
hypotheses.  In  the  fragmentary  state  of  our  evidence,  no  other  method  of 
inquiry  is  possible.  I  hope,  however,  that  some  of  them  may  be  thought  to 
throw  light  on  a  difficult  and  important  subject, 

J.  Wells. 


According  to  Polybius,  there  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Ecnomus  680 
quinqueremes  and  290,000  men,  i.e.  crews  204,000  and  troops  86,000  ;  while  in 
the  next  year,  at  the  battle  of  the  Hermaean  promontory,  550  quinqueremes 
were  engaged.  The  only  figures  comparable  to  these  in  Roman  history, 
manifest  absurdities  apart,  are  those  given  by  Appian  for  the  battle  of 
Naulochus,  and  perhaps  those  for  Actium.  At  Naulochus  300  ships  of  all 
sizes  are  said  to  have  been  in  action  on  either  side,  and  no  doubt  Agrippa's 
fleet,  at  any  rate,  did  amount  to  this  large  number1;  while  at  Actium 
Octavian  may  have  had  anything  up  to  400.2  But  in  Octavian's  time  the 
population  of  all  Italy  may  have  been  7  to  8  millions3;  the  Mediterranean 
was  almost  a  Roman  lake,  and  its  entire  resources  went  to  furnish  the  fleets 
for  the  civil  wars.  But  for  the  generation  next  after  that  of  the  first  Punic 
war,  the  population  of  Roman  Italy  has  been  reckoned  at  only  4  to  4| 
millions,  that  of  Carthaginian  Africa  at  perhaps  3  to  4  millions,3  while  the 
Mediterranean  supported  several  considerable  fleets  beside  those  of  Carthage 
and  Rome.  More  than  one  writer  has  seen  that  the  numbers  given  for 
Ecnomus  are  impossible4;  and  it  seems  worth  while  making  an  attempt  to 
get  at  some  more  reasonable  figures  for  the  first  Punic  war. 

As  to  the  materials,  if  Polybius  is  to  be  corrected  it  must  be  from  Polybius 
himself,  and  not  from  the  later  writers.5  Apart  from  his  being  a  great 
historian,  he  is  far  nearer  in  time  to  the  original  tradition  than  any  one  else. 

1  J.  Kromayer  (' Die  Entwickelung  der  rom-  the  figures  for  the  Actium  campaign  are  very 
ischen  Flotte,'  Philologies  1897),  who  has  gone       uncertain. 

into  the  figures  for  the  civil  wars,  accepts  300  for  3  See    J.    Beloch,   Die    Bcvolkerung  der  gr.- 

the  fleet  of  Sextus  Pompey  also.     But  this  seems  rom.      Welt;  also  Die  Bevblkerung  Italiens  in 

to  me  impossible  ;  for  Pompoy's  3  squadrons  at  Allerthumm  Beitrage  zur  alien  Geschichte,vo\.  3. 

Mylae,  totalling  155,  are  described  by  Appian  4  The    following    helps    one   to  realise    what 

instituting  the  larger   part   of  his   fleet  ;  such  figures   mean.      On   a   population   of    42 

after  losing  30   at  Mylae  and  some  at  Tauro-  millions,  the  British  Navy  has  a  personnel  of 

menium  he  cannot  have  had  more  than  250  at  121,983   (including   coastguard   and   marines), 

the  most  al  Naulochus,  for  building  between  the  and  mobilised  319  vessels  of  all  sorts  for  the 

two    battles   was   out   of  the    question.      This  manoeuvres  of  June — July,  1906  ;  while  in  crew 

would    give    a    total    of    about    550    ships    in  and  troops  two  quinqueremes  carried  about  the 

action.  same  number  as  one  battleship. 

2  J.  Kromayer  in  Hermes  34(1899)  p.  1.  If  5  Meltzer  has  stated  this(Gesch.  der  Karthagcr, 
Octavian  had  100,  and  Antony  170  (plus  60  vol.  2,  p.  568,  n.  49).  But  he  makes  no 
Egyptian),  over  600  ships  were  engaged.     But  application  of  it  to  the  numbers. 


Of  the  rest,  Zonaras  (Dion  Oassius)  is  confused  and  gives  no  figures.  The 
epitomators  of  Livy,  as  they  often  disagree,  must  be  the  subject  of  consider- 
able textual  corruption;  but  even  could  we  restore  Livy,  he  must  either 
agree  with  Polybius  or  be  of  less  authority.  There  remains  Diodorus.  It 
seems  agreed  that,  while  Polybius  is  partly  Fabius,  partly  Philinus,  and  partly 
neither,  Diodorus  is  certainly  largely  Philinus,  i.e.  that  lie  often  gives  what  is 
substantially  the  Carthaginian  version.  Now  I  regard  it  as  certain  that 
Philinus  would  tend  to  exaggerate  the  Roman  numbers,  for  obvious  reasons, 
just  as  Fabius  would  the  Carthaginian;  Diodorus  may  therefore  be  of 
occasional  use  as  giving  a  superior  limit  for  Roman  figures.  I  assume 
that,  other  things  being  equal,  the  smaller  of  two  numbers  is  to  be  taken. 

What,  now,  was  the  position  when  war  broke  out  ? 

Carthage  had  finally  got  the  better  of  Syracuse  in  their  secular  duel,  and 
was  the  greatest  sea-power  of  the  wesi.  But  it  is  easy  to  exaggerate  to 
oneself  that  power.  Meltzer  gives  an  instructive  list  of  prior  Carthaginian 
fleet-numbers:  4<S0  B.C.,  200  warships;  406  B.C.,  120  triremes;  397  B.C.  (war 
with  Dionysius  I.),  100  triremes,  raised  to  200  the  next  year ;  368  B.C. 
(again  against  Dionysius),  200  warships;  in  Timoleon's  war,  first  150,  then 
200  warships  ;  in  311  B.C.,  130  warships  ;  finally,  130  offered  to  Rome  for  help 
against  Pyrrhus.  (I  omit  two  small  squadrons  prior  to  the  fourth  century.) 
These  numbers  are  chiefly  from  Diodorus,  and  may  not  be  accurate  ;  but 
anyhow  they  shew  two  things  ;  first,  that  there  was  a  tradition  that  in  a  time 
of  supreme  national  effort  Carthage  could  raise  a  fleet  of  200  ships  ;  secondly, 
that  it  was  believed  that  the  ordinary  establishment,  of  the  Carthaginian  fleet 
prior  to  the  war  with  Rome  was  130  or  thereabouts.  Whether  these  two 
beliefs  existed  at  the  time  of,  or  whether  they  were  a  consequence  of,  the  first 
Punic  war  may  for  the  moment  be  left  undecided. 

Rome,  of  course,  had  possessed,  or  had  had  the  control  of,  warships  since 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  if  not  earlier.6  But  a  distinction  must 
be  made,  prior  to  the  war  with  Carthage,  between  the  true  Roman  fleet  {i.e. 
the  duumviral  squadrons)7  and  the  ships  which,  after  the  war  with  Pyrrhus, 
were  liable  to  be  furnished  under  treaty  by  the  Italiot  towns.  Duoviri 
navales  were  first  created  in  311  B.C.;  in  283  B.C.  a  squadron  of  10  ships 
under  a  duovir  was  attacked  by  the  Tarentines  and  five  ships  taken  s;  in  181 
B.C.9  and.  178  B.C.10  we  find  that  the  double  duumviral  squadron  consisted,  on 
each  occasion,  of  20  ships,  each  duovir  commanding  10.  We  may  perhaps 
assume  that  the  double  duumviral  squadron  was  regularly  20  ships. 
Such  a  squadron  was  only  fitted  out  when  required,  and  then  laid  up  again. 
Polybius  says  that  when  Appius  Claudius  crossed    to  Messana  the  Romans 

6  The  view  that  Rome,  prior  to  260  B.C.,  used  with    Carthage,    which    cannot   he   later  than 

Greek    ships    only,    seems   again    coming   into  348  B.C.,  presupposes  Roman  warships, 

prominence,    no   donht    as   a   reaction   again  si  "  Not,  of  course,  manned  by  Romans. 

Mommsen;  see  aj.  K.  Speck,  Handclsgcschichle,  8  Liv.  Per.  12  ;  A]']'.  Samn.  7,  1. 

3,  i,  §715.     lint    it    is   demonstrably  wrong.  *  Liv.  l<>,  28. 

Rome  controlled  no  Creek  ships  before  :'.'J7  B.c.  "'  Liv,  11,  1. 
(treaty  with  Neapolis)  ;  while  the  first  treaty 

U.S. — VOL.    XXVII.  I 

50  W.   W.  TARN 

had  not  a  single  ship  of  their  own ;  no  squadron  therefore  had  been  fitted 
out.  But  probably  in  the  navalia  were  at  least  15  old  ships,  the  remains  of 
the  squadron  of  283  B.C.11 

They  had,  however,  afloat  a  squadron  of  triremes  and  pentekontors, 
furnished  under  treaty  by  various  Italiot  towns,1'2  Tarentum,  Locri,  Elea, 
Neapolis.  These  treaty  contributions  were  very  small.  In  210  B.C.  D. 
Quinctius  obtained  12  ships  from  '  the  allies  and  Rhegium  and  Velia  and 
Paestum  '  in  full  discharge  of  their  obligations  (Liv.  26,  39).  In  191  B.C. 
C.  Livius  got  from  Naples,  Rhegium,  Locri  and  the  socii  ejusdem  juris  25 
open  ships  due  under  treaty,  some  being  rostratae,  some  speculatoriae  (scouts).13 
The  treaty  contribution  of  Carthage  herself  in  191  B.C.  was  only  six 
cataphracts  (Liv.  36,  4  and  42).  Messana,  says  Cicero,  had  to  supply  one 
ship.  The  obligation  of  Rhegium  was  one  ship,  that  of  Locri  2  (Liv.  42,  48). 
We  cannot  suppose  that  the  Romans  got  more  than  25  ships  from  the  Italiot 
towns  in  260  B.C. 

The  Romans,  having  resolved  to  contest  the  sea,  built  100  quinqueremes 
and  20  triremes.  The  20  triremes  must  represent  the  double  duumviral 
command,14  the  number  the  Romans  had  previously  been  accustomed  to 
build  when  they  wanted  a  fleet.  The  100  quinqueremes  are  probably  correct, 
seeing  that  the  first  measure  of  the  Romans,  when  war  broke  out  with 
Antiochus,  was  to  decree  100  quinqueremes,15  though  they  were  never  all 
built.  The  Romans  must  also  have  refitted  any  old  ships  in  the  navalia, 
their  regular  operation  at  the  beginning  of  a  war  {e.g.  Liv.  35,  20;  42,  27). 
The  Roman  fleet  therefore  would  consist  of  120  ships  newly  built,  some  15 
refitted,  and  some  25  Italiot ;  possibly  also  two  or  three  from  Massilia  16 ; 
that  is  to  say,  about  160  altogether.17  Obviously,  Rome  was  not  going  to 
challenge  Carthage  with  deliberately  inferior  numbers,  though  an  exaggerated 
idea  of  the  strength  of  the  Carthaginian  navy  has  led  most  writers  to  suppose 
that  she  did  so ;  the  Carthaginian  fleet  in  260  B.C.  should  therefore  be 
somewhat  less,  and  no  doubt  the  number  was  130,  the  number  which 
Polybius  gives  them  at  Mylae  (possibly  taken  from  Duilius'  column),  and 
which  agrees  with,  or  else  was  the  cause  of,  the  already  noticed  belief  that 

11  Mommsen  thinks  the  Tarentines  had  to  give  15  Liv.  35,  20.  In  the  affairs  of  Greece  and 
up  their  ships  after  the  war  with  Fyrrhus  ;  but  Syria  Livy  is  supposed  to  represent  the 
probalily  this  was  not  the  case  (see  Niese,  substance  of  Polybius  fairly  accurately,  and  for 
Grundriss  d.  ram.  Gcsch.  in  Midler's  H.  d.  k.  the  naval  war  with  Antiochus  the  way  in  which 
A.  Ill,  •'),  (1906),  ]>.  70,  n.  4),  for  Tarentum  Appian  agrees  with  and  complements  Livy 
kept  its  independence  and  had  a  number  of  ships  makes  this  almost  certain.  If  the  100  quin- 
Ln  the  second  Punic  war.  Even  if  they  did  hand  queremes  of  260  B.C.  be  from  Fabius  those  of 
over   some    ships,   the    Romans,   as    was    their  192  B.C.  are  not. 

custom,  probably  burnl  them.  16  Two  Massiliot ships  joined  Cn.  Scipio  in  217 

12  Polyb.  1,  20.  H.c.   (Polyb.   3,  95  =  Liv.   22,  19)  ;  and  in  211 

13  The  number  appears  (quite  clearly)  from  p..  c.  four  joined  the  propraetor  M.  Junius  Silamis 
App.  Syr.  22  combined  with  Liv.  36,42,  and  is      (Liv.  26,  19). 

presumably  that  of  Polybius.  17  Naturally  I  attach  no  importance  to   the 

14  I  do  not  mean  that  they  had  anything  to  fact  that  Floras  1,  18,  7  says  the  Romans  built 
do  with^duoviri,  who  are  not  heard  of  during      160  ships  in  260  B.C. 

bhe  period  "i  tin-  great  naval  war.-.. 


the  ordinary  establishment  of  the  Carthaginian  fleet  prior  to  the  war  with 
Rome  was  about  130. 

As  regards  the  opening  of  the  naval  campaign,  it  is  clear  that  in  chs.  21 
and  22  of  book  1,  Polybius  has  combined  two  different  accounts.18  Both  com- 
menced with  Boodes  capturing  17  Roman  ships;  ch.  21  then  makes  Hannibal 
blander  into  the  Roman  fleet  with  50  ships  and  lose  some  30  ('  more  than 
half);  butch.  22  knows  nothing  of  this;  here  the  main  Roman  fleet,  still 
far  off  and  concerned  at  Boodes'  victory,  puts  in  (?  to  Rtessana)  and  equips 
itself  with  the  corvus.  The  account  of  Mylae  that  follows,  the  Carthaginian 
confidence,  the  honours  paid  to  Duilius,  are  all  inconsistent  with  a  prior 
Carthaginian  defeat;  and  the  battle  of  ch.  21  must  undoubtedly  be,  as  Dr. 
Beloch  supposes,  the  Carthaginian  version  of  Mylae  taken  from  Philirrus,19 
though  Polybius  may  well  be  excused  for  not  recognising  it.  If  so,  it  is  some 
evidence  that  (as  we  may,  indeed,  suspect  from  Polybius)  the  whole 
Carthaginian  fleet  was  not  engaged  in  that  battle. 

The  Roman  fleet  at  Mylae,  then,  was  some  140  strong,  (about  160  less  17,) 
against  the  whole  or  part  of  a  Carthaginian  fleet  of  130.  The  Romans 
took  30  ships  and  the  hepteres,  and  sank  19.  Their  own  loss  is  not  given, 
but  must  have  been  less  than  19  ;  say  10.  If  they  were  able  to  refit  20  out 
of  the  30  prizes,"20  they  were  probably  about  150  strong  the  next  year. 

Hannibal,  with  the  80  ships  left,  returned  to  Carthage,  procured  rein- 
forcements, (probably  Boodes'  prizes  and  a  few  old  ships,)  and  sailed  to 
Sardinia  perhaps  100  strong.  Here  he  lost  '  many  '  ships,  but  apparently  not 
their  crews.  As  Polybius  gives  the  total  Carthaginian  loss  in  the  war  at 
about  500,  we  can  see,  by  adding  up  the  other  losses  in  his  figures,-1  that  he 
must  have  taken  the  loss  in  Sardinia  at  about  60.    But  it  will  appear  that  we 

18  F.  Reuss,  Philologus  60  (1901 j  p.  102,  who  grapnel  on  a  pole,  like  Agrippa's  ap?ra|.     Dion 

has  made  the  latest  examination  of  Polybius'  Cassius  so  understood  it,  for  Zonaras  speaks  of 

sources,  gives  Chs.    20-24  as  all  from  Fabius.  the  Romans  using  x«'Pa*  -ntpiKovTovs  aiSrjpas  : 

But    such   a   result    seems    to    me    merely    to  and    Appian    so    understood    it,    for    whereas 

condemn   his   method ;    for   the  break    in    the  Agrippa's    ships  at   Xaulochos   use    the  apira^ 

sense  of  the  narrative  between  Chs.  21  and  22  (described  App.   6.  c.    5,   118),   at   Mylae   these 

is  paten  1  to  anyone.  same  ships  have   xopaKas  (b.  c.    5,  106).     The 

1:1  Gr.  Geseh.  vol.  3.  i.  p.  677  n.  1.     If  this  supposed     boarding-bridge     must     have     been 

be  so,  it    is   noteworthy   that    Philinus   knows  taken  by   Fabius   from  the  bridge  or  ladder  of 

nothing  of  the  boarding-bridge  (corvus,  K<fpa|) ;  the  sambuca   used    by   Marcellus  in  attacking 

ami  no  doubt  Ihne  was  right  in  suspecting  the  Syiacuse,  eo  doubt  a  real  machine,  as  it  appeal's 

traditional  account  of  this  machine,   which  is  again    (somewhat    altered)    in    the    siegi>    of 

not  heard  of  after  Ecnomus,  and  which  seems  Rhodes    and    Cyzicus    by    Mithradates   (App. 

part  of  the  deliberate   introduction  by  Fabius  Mith.    26   compared  with   73  .      Some  sort  of 

<>t    in  element  of  wonder  into  this  war:    for.  ladder   for   boarding   occurs,    however,    at    the 

after  all,    boarding    and   irffanaxia   were    the  battle  of  Cumae  (App.  i.e.  5,  82),  if  this  1 

oldest  form  of  sea-fighting  known,  and  the  Car-  meaning  of  Appian's  unique  use  of  KarapfraKTai. 

thaginians  would  have  been  delighted  with  an  '-'"  About     the      proportion      refitted      after 

arrangement  that  would  have  prevented  more  Ecnomus. 

than  two  Romans  coming  aboard  at  once.  Now  '-1  Viz,    battle   of   ch.    21,    30,    Mylae   50, 

the  Athenians  had  used  grapnels  in  413  B.C.,  Tyndaris    18,   Ecnomus   about    100     (64  +  over 

and  they  occur  commonly  in  the  second  Punic  30),    rlermaea  111,   Aegatcs   Insula.-    120;  432 

war;  and  the  Ktfpaf  was  probably  an  improved  altogether. 

E    2 

52  W.  W.  TARN 

require  some  further  loss  for  Hermaea  ;  and  500  is  a  very  round  figure.  We 
may  put  Hannibal's  outside  loss  in  Sardinia  at  40;  it  may  have  been  nearer 
20,  leaving  him  some  60  to  80  ships. 

These  ships  encountered  the  Roman  fleet  at  Tyndaris  (257  B.C.).  That 
the  Romans  were  in  greatly  superior  numbers  (we  have  seen  it  might  be 
about  150)  appears  from  the  account  of  the  battle22;  and  the  only  extant 
figures23  are  at  least  evidence  of  a  great  disproportion  in  strength.  The 
Romans  lost  nine  ships,  the  Carthaginians  18. 

The  Carthaginians  had  paid  the  penalty  of  despising  their  enemies. 
They  now  set  to  work  in  earnest  to  beat  them,  as  did  the  Romans  to  invade 
Africa;  both,  says  Polybius,  made  a  great  effort.  The  results  were  Ecnomus 
(256  B.C.)  and  Hermaea  (255  or  254  B.C.).24  The  figures  in  Polybius  are  as 
follows :  Ecnomus,  Romans  330,  Carthaginians  350  ;  Roman  loss  24  sunk, 
Carthaginian  more  than  30  sunk,  64  captured.  Hermaea,  Romans  350  (i.e.  330 
less  24  sunk  plus  44  prizes  refitted,25  the  40  ships  left  in  Africa  taking  part 
in  the  battle),  Carthaginians  200,  some  of  which  had  been  built  in  a  hurry 
(Polyb.  1,  36);  the  Romans  capture  114;  no  other  losses  given.  On  the 
way  home  the  Romans  encounter  a  storm,  and  out  of  the  364  all  are  lost 
but  80. 

Here  are  two  big  discrepancies.  If  the  Romans  had  350  ships  at  Hermaea, 
then  (on  Polybius'  evident  assumption  that  they  had  no  losses)  they  should 
have  had  464  ships  in  the  storm,  not  364,  (i.e.  3504-114  prizes  in  tow)  ;  while 
the  Carthaginians,  with  250  left  after  Ecnomus,  need  not  have  built  in  a 
hurry  to  get  200  to  sea. 

To  take  the  Roman  figures  first.  Supposing  Polybius'  account  of 
Hermaea  to  be  correct,  the  figure  364  for  the  storm  (2504-114)  shews,  on 
the  assumption  of  no  Roman  losses,  that  the  Roman  fleet  at  Hermaea  was 
250.20  If  so,  that  at  Ecnomus  was  230  (230-24  sunk  +  44  prizes  refitted, 
as  before  =  250).     Is,  then,  Polybius'  account  of  Hermaea  correct  ? 

~-2  The  consul  hurries  after  the  enemy  as  an  different     proconsular    squadron-commands    of 

easy  prey,  going  forward  with  10  ships  ;  they  the    2nd    Punic    war   can   hardly    be   cited   in 

surround  him  and  sink   9,   but,    pursuing  the  support. 

flagship,  become  engaged  with  the  main  Romrui  ,&  Polyb.  1,  29,  says  they  refitted  the  prizes, 

fleet,  and  lose  8  sunk,  10  taken.  If  he  means  all,  which  is  unlikely,  then  only 

21  Polyaen.  8,  20  ;  Romans  200,  Garth.  80.  forty-four  were  taken,  and  the  lower  of  the  two 

i4  The  date  is  fortunately  not  material  here,  numbers   hereafter    discussed   for  the    Cartha- 

for  either   year   is  open   to   serious  objection.  ginian    fleet   at   Ecnomus   becomes   even  mine 

For  a  summary  of  the  argument",   see  Reuss,  probable. 

u.  s. ;  also  Beloch,  Gr.  Gesch.  3,  ii,  234,  whose  -6  The  number  350  given  for  Hermaea  does  not 

reasons  for   254   are   hardly   convincing.     The  shew  that  the  storm   number  should   be   464, 

difficulty  is  this  :    255    f;ives   no  time  for  the  because,  ceteris  paribus,  the  smaller  number  is 

siege  of  Clypea,  and  does  not  explain  why  the  to    be    followed.      But   as  a  fact  Eutronius,  or 

Hermaea  triumph  Fell  in  253;  while  254  makes  some  scribe,  had  the  curiosity  to  add  up,  and 

the  Romans  first  waste  a  year  before  succouring  Eutropius   does   give   464   for  the  storm;  and 

their  beaten  troops  (though  the  fleet  was  ready),  Meltzer  hereupon  suggests  that  the  real  Foly- 

and    then   send  out    the    fleet,   not    under   the  bian  tradition  may  have  been  464,  a  suggestion 

consuls  (as  on  all  other  occasions  in  this  war),  which  is  out  of  the  question  for  at  least  three 

but  under  the  consuls  of  255-4  as   proconsuls,  separate  reasons  :  it  prefers  the  easier  version 

without  any   apparenf    reason  ;    for   the    very  and  the  large!"  number,   and  corrects   a   good 


It  has  been  criticised  on  two  grounds  :  one,  because  Polybius  gives  114 
Carthaginian  ships  as  captured  ami  none  as  sunk  ;  the  other,  because  he 
dismisses  in  three  lines  what  (on  his  shewing)  was  a  greater  victory  than 
Ecnomus,  to  which  he  gives  as  many  chapters.  There  was,  too,  another 
(?  Carthaginian)  version  of  this  battle,  which  makes  it  a  stubborn  fight 
(Zonaras),  the  Carthaginians  losing  24  slups  (Diodorus);  and  I  line  was 
inclined,  following  Haltaus,  to  take  Poly bi us'  eKarhv  SeKareaaapa^;  as  a 
corruption  of  ei/coai  /cal  reaaapa^. 

Correcting  Polybius'  account  of  a  Carthaginian  loss  by  Diodorus  is 
hardly  convincing  work;  but  in  fact  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  battle  was 
a  great  defeat  for  Carthage.  Not  only  was  she  impotent  at  sea  for  years 
after,  but  the  consul  Aemilius  Paullus,  who  was  in  command,  set  up  a 
columna  rostrata  to  celebrate  the  victory  (Liv.  42,  20),  and  we  only  hear  of 
one  other  such  column  prior  to  Augustus,  that  of  Duilius.  As  to  the 
captures,  Polybius'  phrase  e£  icpoSov  /cal  pahLws  rpe\frd/xevoi  shews  that  the 
battle  was  of  the  Drepana  type  :  the  Carthaginian  fleet,  in  part  hastily  built 
and  manned  by  crews  of  whom  some  must  have  been  inexperienced  and  the 
remainder  possibly  shaken  by  a  great  defeat,  was  surprised  or  caught  at  a 
disadvantage  and  jammed  against  the  shore,  all,  or  almost  all,  the  ships  that 
could  not  make  the  open  sea  being  captured.27  And  Polybius  presumably 
dismisses  the  battle  in  three  lines  just  because  he  had  given  so  much  space 
to  Ecnomus,  for  he  had  to  keep  his  account  of  the  war  brief.28 

The  Roman  numbers,  then,  are  230  Ecnomus,  250  Hermaea,  250  +  114  in 
the  storm,  of  which  all  were  lost  but  80.29  The  number  330  for  the  Roman 
fleet  at  Ecnomus  no  doubt  arose  from  reckoning  in  the  transports30  and 
calling  the  whole  warships;  the  number  350  for  the  Carthaginian  fleet  merely 
shews  that  Fabius,  as  a  good  patriot,  had  given  a  number  a  little  bigger  than 
that  of  his  own  side  as  he  made  it  out,  The  hurried  building  of  the 
Carthaginians  before  Hermaea  may  have  been  from  50  to  100  ships,  according 
as  from  150  to  100  escaped  from  Ecnomus;  the  figure,  then,  at  Ecnomus 
would  have  been  at  the  outside  250  (100  being  lost),  but  might  not  have 
exceeded  200.  Apart  from  the  preference  to  be  given  to  the  smaller  number, 
if  sufficient,  other  considerations  all  point  to  200.  The  Roman  number  230 
shews  that   they  expected  to  meet  a  fleet  of  not  over  200,  or  else,  looking  to 

early  writer  with  a  sound  text  by  a  poor  and  which  Livy  gives  at  length  ;  and  this  in  a  war 

late  compiler.     Reuss,  u.  s.   and  Speck,   Han-  where   his   general    agreement  with  Livy  over 

delsycsch.   3,    ii,   §  824-5,   follow   Meltzer  ;  but  the  naval  operations  is  most  marked, 

one  cannot  write  history  merely  by  taking  the  ~v  If  any  Roman  ships  were  lost  at  Hermaea, 

line  of  least  resistance.  the  number  lost  in  the  storm  would  be  fewer, 

-7   Possibly  the  number  114  comes  from  the  SO  anyhow  remaining. 

column.     Perhaps,  too,  the  reason  why  Philinus  30  This  must  be  a  common  source  of  confusion 

(Diodorus)  gives  the   Roman  loss   at    Drepana  in  classical    as  in  modern)  fleet  numbers.     No 

as    117   was   to   shew   that    the   Carthaginians  figures  in  antiquity  are  more  exaggerated  than 

had  had  a  full  revenge  for  Hermaea.  those   of  transports;    after   such    numbers    as 

28  There    is   an   exact    parallel    in    Appian's  3,000  and  1,600,  the  writer  who  confined  him- 

account  of  the  war  against   Autiochus;  he  dis-  self  to  less  than  four  figures  must  have  been 

misses  in  two  casual  lines  the  very  important  astounded  at  his  own  moderation. 
defeat  of  Hannibal  by  the  Rhodians   at    Side, 

54  W.   W.  TARN 

what  they  did  later,  they  could  easily  have  built  more,  having  some  140  ships 
and  10  prizes  in  hand  to  start  with.  The  Roman  number  250  at  Hermaea, 
which  came  automatically  without  building-,  would  have  been  increased  had 
Carthage  shewn  ability  to  put  250  to  sea,  and  almost  proves  that  the 
Carthaginian  number  at  Ecnomus  was  less  ;  for  it  is  to  be  remembered  that, 
both  before  and  after  Ecnomus,  Rome,  in  addition  to  her  greater  resources, 
had  a  very  long  start  in  building.  We  have,  too,  the  tradition,  whether  prior  to 
or  due  to  this  war,  that  200  ships  meant  a  supreme  effort  for  Carthage.31 
Most  important  of  all,  perhaps,  is  the  battle  itself,  which  points  to  the 
Carthaginians  being  outnumbered;  they  tried  enveloping82  tactics,  and  failed 
because  their  centre  was  too  weak  for  its  work.  We  must,  I  think,  give 
Carthage  at  Ecnomus  200,  as  at  Hermaea  ;  anyhow  not  much  over.  If  the 
Romans  after  Hermaea  took  off  114  prizes  in  tow,  there  must  have  been  a 
few  ships  too  badly  wounded  to  tow33;  if  we  say  16,  and  give  Carthage  some 
70  not  very  efficient  ships  remaining,  that  is  all  they  can  well  have  had.34 

To  continue  Polybius'  figures.  After  the  first  storm,  off  Camarina,  the 
Romans,  having  80  ships  left,  built  220,  raising  their  fleet  to  300  (254  B.C.) ; 
they  capture  Panormus  (253  B.C.) ;  they  lose  150  ships  in  a  second  storm,  off 
the  Lucanian  coast  (253  B.C.),  and  retire  from  the  sea;  in  252  B.C.  they  escort 
a  convoy  to  Panormus  with  60  ships;  they  again  build  50  ships,  making 
200  in  250  B.C.,  in  which  year  they  form  the  siege  of  Lilybaeum ;  in  249  B.C. 
P.  Claudius  has  123  ships  at  Drepana,  and  L.  Junius  120.  In  251  B.C. 
Hasdrubal  sails  to  Sicily  with  200  ships  and  a  large  army ;  after  Drepana 
Adherbal  receives  a  reinforcement  of  70  ships  under  Carthalo.  These  are 
all  the  numbers  given  by  Polybius.  It  will  be  best  to  work  backwards  from 

Claudius'  plan  was  to  sail  from  Lilybaeum  to  Drepana  with  every  ship 
he  had.35  Polybius  says  30  escaped,  and  the  rest,  93,  were  captured  ;  the 
account  shows  that  some  of  them  were  much  damaged.  His  fleet,  then, 
numbered  123.  Adherbal's  force  is  not  given.  It  must  have  been  smaller 
than  the  Roman  ;  first,  because  Claudius  thought  it  feasible  to  attack  him 
under  the  catapults  of  Drepana;  secondly,  because  Adherbal's  victory  was  looked 
upon  as  an  unexpected  salvation  for  Carthage ;  thirdly,  because  in  Polybius' 
list  of  the  advantages  on  the  Carthaginian  side  that  of  numbers  is  not 
included.  At  the  same  time,  it  was  large  enough  to  capture  the  bulk  of 
the  Roman  fleet.  We  shall  not  be  far  wrong  if  we  put  it  at  100  at  the 
outside,  possibly  rather  less.  Why  Claudius  attacked  is  clear  enough  ;  he 
must  have  heard  that  Adherbal  was  about  to  receive  a  reinforcement  of 
70   ships,  (which   in   fact   arrived   after    the  battle,)    and    he    very  properly 

31  The  difficulty,  of  course,  all  through  (money  34  Assuming  that  they  did  have  as  many  as 
apart),  both  at  Rome  and  Carthage,  must  have  200  ships  at  Hermaea. 

been,  not  ships,  but  men  to  row  them.  35  Polyb.  1,  49,  navri  r$  aT6\<f.     I  mention 

32  The    Romans   are    described   as   in  wedge  this  as  it  is  commonly  assumed  that  he  left  a 
formation,  not  in  line.  squadron  at  Lilybaeum,  a  most  useless  proeeed- 

"   Even  at  Drepana,  Polybius  says,  there  was  ing,  as  the  blockade  was  a  failure  anyhow,  and 

some  ramming,  ami  sonic  ships  settled.  bis  striking  force  insufficient. 


supposed  that  if  he  did  not  attack  while  he  could,  that  able  man  would 
presently  attack  him  in  overwhelming  force.  No  wonder  he  lost  his  temper 
with  the  sacred  chickens. 

After  the  battle,  Carthalo,  with  the  70  ships  he  had  brought  and 
30  others 36  given  him  by  Adherbal,  attacked  the  30  Roman  ships  that  had 
escaped  to  Lilybaeum  with  Claudius,  and  accounted  for  '  a  few '  (dXiya)  of 
them,  towing  off  some  and  destroying  others.  Diodorus  says  he  captured  5  and 
sank  a  few;  and  Philinus  would  make  the  most  of  it.  Putting  both  accounts 
together,  we  may  say  that  Carthalo  cannot  have  accounted  for  more  than  10 
of  the  30.  Carthalo  then  took  up  his  station  not  far  from  Lilybaeum,  to 
hinder  the  approach  of  the  other  consul,  L.  Junius,"7  who  was  coming  up  with 
a  convoy  and  120  warships,  which  figure  included  ships  that  had  joined  him 
from  '  the  camp  and  the  rest  of  Sicily.' 3S  He  had  these  120  before  <  Jarthalo's 
attack  on  the  thirty  ships  at  Lilybaeum,  and  anyhow  the  surviving  2(J  could 
not  have  joined  him,  as  Carthalo  with  100  ships  lay  between.  Junius' 
entire  fleet  was  lost  in  a  storm.  At  the  end,  then,  of  this  disastrous  year, 
in  which  the  Romans  lost  some  223  ships,  they  had  some  20  only  remaining. 

Now  to  work  backwards.  The  Romans  built  50  ships  in  250  B.C. ;  in 
249  bc.  they  had  243;  their  number,  then,  in  250  B.C.,  before  they  built,  was 
not  150,  as  Polybius  says,  but  193.  They  did  not,  therefore,  lose  150  ships  in 
the  second  storm,  off  the  Lucanian  coast.  Now  they  had  80  ships  left  after 
the  first  storm,  and  are  said  to  have  built  220,  making  300  altogether.  Why 
they  should  raise  their  fleet  to  this  unparalleled  figure  at  a  time  when 
Carthage  was  quite  impotent  at  sea  does  not  appear.  Diodorus  gives  the 
total  Roman  fleet  after  this  building  (not  the  new-built  ships  only)  as  250, 
and  we  have  assumed  that  Philinus  was  likely  to  exaggerate  the  Roman 
strength.  The  real  number,  therefore,  was  probably  under  250;  and  as  we 
have  to  account  for  the  figure  220  in  Polybius,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
220  was  the  total,  not  of  the  newly  built  ships,  but  of  the  whole  Roman 
fleet  after  the  building.39  The  fleet,  then,  in  254  B.C.  was  220  ships  ;  the  loss 
in  the  second  storm  in  253  B.C.  was  not  150,  but  27  (220  —  27  =  193)  ;  193, 
with  the  50  built  in  250  B.C.,  make  up  the  243  required  for  the  year  of 
Drepana.  The  supposed  loss  of  150  in  the  second  storm  must,  then,  be  a 
duplicate  of  the  loss  in  the  first  storm ; 40  and  if  the  Romans  sent  only  60 

";  Polybius   says   the   prizes   were    taken    to  him  from  Lilybaeum,  they  must  have  been  sent 

Carthage.     Some  were  damaged  ;  if  we  take  the  off  before  the  battle  of  Drepana. 

same    proportion   as   after  Ecnomus,   CO  t>  70  39  The    300    of    Polybius    may    be   another 

at  the  most     would   be   worth   refitting,    and  instance  of  confusion  due  to  transports  or  ships 

Adherbal  would  have  remaining  jusl   about  the  other  than   warships  ;    for   Diodorus   says  the 

same  number  of  ships  to  tow  them.  Romans  sailed  to  the  siege  of  Lilybaeum  with 

37  The    Fasti   shew   that    he   was  Claudius3  240  long  ships  and  60  cercuri,  i.e.  300  vessels, 

colleague.     Polybius  speaks  as  if  he   were   his  Cercuri  occur  in  the  Roman  navy  (or  the  Roman 

successor  and  sailed  the  next  year  (248  b.c.  .  service)  in  both  the  second  and  third  Punic  wars  ; 

but  it  seems  reasonably  clear   that   the   naval  I.iv.  23,  34  :  App.  Lib.  75. 

operations     under     both     consuls     form     one  4"  At  first  sight   the   loss  in   the  first  storm 

connected  sequence  and  took  place  in  the  same  would  seem   to  be   170  Roman   ships  and   114 

year,  249  B.C.  prizes;  for   the   prizes  would,  of  course,    have 

33  Pol.   1,   52.     If,  in  fact,  any  ships  joined  been  casl   off  when   the  storm  broke.     But  as 

56  W.  W.  TARN 

with  a  convoy  in  252  B.C.  it  was  because  GO  sufficed,  and  not  because  they 
were  retiring  from  the  sea. 

For  that  the  Carthaginian  navy  did  not  easily  recover  from  the  battle 
of  Hermaea  seems  certain.  They  had  perhaps  70  not  very  efficient  ships  left, 
and  the  Romans  did  what  they  liked  at  sea.  They  took  Panormus  ;  they 
sent  supplies  there  with  only  60  ships  as  escort;  they  blockaded  Lilybaeum. 
The  Carthaginians  in  250  B.C.  could  not  attempt  to  raise  the  blockade  ;  they 
had  to  confine  themselves  to  running  it ;  how  little  there  was  to  fear  from 
the  sea  side  is  shown  by  the  Romans  dividing  their  fleet,  and  also  laying  up 
part  of  the  blockading  fleet  and  using  the  rowers  as  land  troops.  The 
history  of  the  second  Punic  war  seems  to  shew  that  Carthage  could  not,  and 
knew  she  could  not,  support  at  once  a  great  fleet  and  a  great  army ;  and  in 
251  B.C.  she  had  sent  to  Sicily  the  army  and  the  elephants  with  which  Has- 
drubal  attempted  to  retake  Panormus  by  land.41  The  destruction  of  that 
army  and  the  danger  to  Lilybaeum,  however,  compelled  Carthage  once  more 
to  turn  to  her  fleet;  by  249  B.C.  Adherbal  had  perhaps  100  ships,  and  70 
others  were  ready  at  Carthage  ;  it  was  this  growing  danger  that  compelled 
Claudius  to  strike. 

For  the  period  after  Drepana  there  is  little  to  say.  The  Cartha- 
ginians had  some  170  ships,  less  any  lost  at  Drepana,  plus  some  60  to  70 
prizes  worth  refitting.  But  after  a  little  they  laid  up  their  fleet,  no  doubt 
because  the  crews  were  wanted  for  the  war  already  on  their  hands  in  Africa  ; i2 
under  these  circumstances  it  is  wholly  unlikely  that  any  prizes  were  fitted 
out.  When  the  Romans  again  built  they  built  200  ships  ;  these,  with  the 
20  or  so  remaining  after  Drepana,  which  according  to  Zonarashad  meanwhile 
been  used  as  privateers,  would  give  them  about  220  in  the  final  battle  of  the 
Aegates  Insulae.  The  Carthaginian  number  is  unknown  ;  Polybius  merely 
says  they  got  ready  '  the  ships';  if  we  assume  that  they  had  100  ships  at 
Drepana  and  no  losses  there,  and  could  and  did  refit  70  prizes — all  the  mo^t 
favourable  hypotheses,  in  fact — they  may  have  controlled  240  ships,  as  an 
outside  number.  But  if  they  laid  up  their  own  fleet,  it  is  unlikely  that  they 
had  fitted  out  the  prizes.  They  had  used  up  their  trained  crews  ;  both  the 
rowers  and  the  marines  who  took  part  in  the  battle  were  extemporised  ;  no 
doubt  they  were  in  part  got  together  from  the  crews  of  the  transports  ;  for 
that  there  were  no  men  to  spare  for  transports  is  shown  by  the  warships  them- 
selves being  loaded  down  with  stores  for  the  army  of  Sicily.     It  is  not  in  such 

rostra  were  forthcoming  for  Aemilius  Paullus'  to  this  that  Hasdrubal  did  get  his  large  army 

column,  one  division  must  have  got  to  harbour  across  ;  the  Romans  had  no  naval  base  facing 

with  its  prizes  ;  consequently  the  Roman  ships  Africa,  and  even  if  they  had  had,  the  command 

lost  were  more  than  170.  of  the  sea  (such  as  it  was  with  galleys)  rarely, 

u   The    200    'ships'   with    which    Hasdrubal  if  ever,  prevented  an   army  crossing  in  ancient 

dtoSicily  Polyb.  1,38)  are  obviously  trans-  times.     Pompey  commanded  the  sea  absolutely 

ports.     To    suppose   that    they    were    warships  as   against   Caesar;    so   did   the    liberators   as 

makes  nonsense  of  tin-  events  before  Lilybaeum  against  Antony  and  Octavian  ;  yet  in  each  case 

in   250  and  249  B.C.,   more  particularly  of  the  the  Adriatic  was  crossed  in  force. 
Romans  laying  up  pari  of  their  fleet,  the  account  4-  Meltzer,  vol.  2,  p.  336. 

of  which  is  yery  circumstantial.   It  is  noobjection 


circumstances,  and  with  such  a  dearth  of  men,  that  they  could  have  got  to 
sea  a  fleet  of  24*0  ships,  the  largest  in  their  history.  If  we  give  them  their 
own  ships,  170,  we  shall  be  nearer  the  mark,  with  perhaps  200,  the  number 
of  Ecnomus  and  Hermaea,  as  an  outside  figure.43  But  this  time  seamanship 
was  on  the  side  of  Rome  ;  120  Carthaginian  ships  were  sunk  or  taken  ;  and 
the  war  was  over. 

If  any  reader  has  had  the  patience  to  follow  the  foregoing  analysis,  he 
will  already  have  seen  the  deduction  from  it;  but  for  clearness'  sake  I  may 
repeat  the  figures  that  seem  probable.  In  200  B.C.  the  Romans  had  about 
100  ships,  the  Carthaginians  130.  At  Ecnomus,  Romans  230,  Carthaginians 
about  200  (with  a  possibility  of  a  somewhat  higher  Carthaginian  figure).  At 
Hermaea,  Romans  250,  Carthaginians  200.  In  254  B.C.,  Romans  220, 
Carthaginians  about  70.  In  249  B.C.,  Romans  243,  Carthaginians  about  170. 
At  the  Aegates  Insulae,  241  B.C.,  Romans  about  220,  Carthaginians  perhaps 
170  to  200  at  the  outside. 

The  tradition,  then,  that  a  fleet  of  200  ships  meant  a  supreme  effort  for 
Carthaoe  dates  from  before  the  war,  and  was  well  founded ;  it  was  known  to 
the  Romans  ;  and  the  Romans,  in  their  bid  for  sea-power,  were  not  invading 
the  realm  of  miracle,  but  were  acting  on  a  reasonable,  cool-headed  calculation. 
They  reckoned  that,  with  their  greater  resources,  they  could  keep  up  a  fleet 
of  from  20  to  40  ships  in  excess  of  200,  that  is,  in  excess  of  anything  they 
expected  Carthage  to  do;  and  that  if  they  did  this  they  must  win.  And 
they  did  win  ;  though  their  calculations  were  nearly  upset  by  the  genius  of 
Adherbal  and  the  jealousy  of  the  sea.  Their  victory  was  none  the  less  a 
heroic  achievement  because  it  was  founded  in  a  well-reasoned  policy  and 
because  the  Carthaginian  sea-power  was  perhaps  not  so  great  as  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  think.44 

One  other  conclusion  appears  to  follow  from  the  figures.  The  Romans 
were  throughout  building  to  the  Carthaginian  numbers,  not  vice  versd.  This 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  they  could  build  more  quickly,  for  they  had 
(so  to  speak)  the  whip  hand  in  the  matter  of  building  from  Mylae  to 
Drepana ;  but  it  does  mean  that  they  must  have  known  a  great  deal  more  of 
what  was  going  on  at  Carthage  than  the  Carthaginians  knew  of  what  was 

43  There  is  another,  perhaps  a  better,  way  of  cent.,  or  even  60  per  cent.,  and  we  come  back 

getting  at  the  Carthaginian  fleet  of  241    B.C.  to  this,  that  a  fleet  of  not  over  170  cannot  be 

In  the  war  with  the  mercenaries  the  Carthagin-  far  from  the  mark.     Of  course,  if  the  120  ships 

ians  had  nothing  but  triremes  and  pentekontors  lost  were  not  all  quinqueremes,  the  argument 

(Polyb.  1,  73) ;  they  had  therefore  lost  all  their  is  even  stronger. 

quinqueremes  at  the  Aegates  Insulae.  including  "  If  200  ships  or  so  was  in   fact   Carthage's 

presumably  the  Roman  prizes.     Suppose  all  the  effective  limit,  the  limitation  must  have  had  to 

120  ships  lost  to  have  been  quinqueremes,  the  do  with  the  crews,  of  which  we  know  little.      It 

swifter  ships  alone  escaping.     120   is   50   per  has  nothing  to  do,  for  instance,  with  the  numbei 

cent,  of  2-10,  (50  per  cent,  of  200,  70  per  cent.  of  the  pewpta  at  Carthage  being  220  :  lor.  apart 

of  170,  80  per  cent,  of  150.      Bui  we  know  that  from  I'tica.  the  Carthaginians  had   the  control 

in  219  B.C.  the  Carthaginian  fleet  of  Spain  con-  of  the  docks  built  by  Agathocles  at    Hippagreta 

taiued  SS  per   cent,    of  quinqueremes,    (post,  (App.  Lib.  110) ;  and  besides,  a  fleet  could  at  a 

p.  9);  it  is  therefore  most  unlikely  that  their  pinch   winter  ashore   anywhere   {e.g.    Liv.    30. 

fleet  of  241    B.C.    contained   as   few    as   50    per  45). 

58  W.  W.  TARN 

going  on  at  Rome.  Did  Hieron  provide  for  the  intelligence  of  his  allies,  as 
well  as  for  their  commissariat  ? 45 

The  probability  of  the  correctness  of  the  view  which  I  have  taken  is 
much  enhanced  by  a  consideration  of  the  figures  handed  down  for  the 
second  Panic  war.  I  am  not  going  into  these  in  detail,  but  I  may  give  a  few 
salient  points.  The  Romans  began  operations  in  218  B.C.  by  sending  out 
220  ships.46  By  217  B.C.  it  was  clear  that  Carthage  was  not  going  to  fight 
at  sea.  In  215  B.C.  the  Carthaginians  had  120  ships  at  sea,47  plus  a  few  in 
Spain,  possibly  18. 4S  In  214  B.C.  the  Roman  fleet  is  down  to  185.49  In 
212  B.C.  the  largest  Carthaginian  fleet  of  the  war,  130  ships  under  Bomilcar, 
attempts  to  relieve  Syracuse.50  In  211  B.C.  the  Roman  fleet  is  raised  to  215, 
a  new  squadron  of  30  being  fitted  out  and  sent  to  Spain  under  M.  Junius 
Silanus,51  giving  100  for  Sicily,  65  for  Spain,  and  50  for  the  Adriatic;  the 
latter  squadron,  however,  was  tied  to  watching  Philip,  and  could  hardly  be 
counted  as  available  against  Carthage.  In  208  B.C.  there  was  a  scare  of  a 
great  Carthaginian  fleet,  the  number,  of  course,  being  put  at  200.52  Rome  had 
already  233  ships  this  year,  i.e.  those  of  211  B.C.  plus  18  taken  by  Scipio  at 
New  Carthage  and  fitted  out53;  all  the  ships  in  Spain,  however,  had  been 
laid  up  and  the  crews  added  to  the  army,  while  the  fleet  of  the  Adriatic  did 
not  count  as  against  Carthage.  Scipio  was  therefore  ordered  to  equip  and 
send  to  Sardinia  50  ships,  and  50  additional  ships  were  fitted  out  at  Rome, 
giving,  with  the  fleet  of  Sicily,  200  ships  52 ;  while  Silanus  had  in  addition  30 
quinqueremes  in  Spain  for  which  he  had  crews,  and  which  were  available 
should  the  Carthaginian  fleet  materialise.54 

The  events  of  the  year  208  B.C.,  in  which  Rome  equipped  230  ships  to 
meet  a  threatened  Carthaginian  fleet  of  200,  do  appear  entirely  to  support 
the  conclusion  come  to  with  regard  to  the  first  Punic  war. 

One  word  as  to  the  total  losses  given  by  Polybius.  Assuming  that  his 
figures  for  the  losses  in  the  separate  battles  are  correct — and  without  this 
assumption  we  cannot  go  into  the  figures  at  all — the  total  of  500  given  for 
the  Carthaginian  loss  is  not  very  wide  of  the  mark  ;  as  worked  out  in  this 

46  The    only  time,  except  in  Spain,   when  a  out  from  Livy's  confused  narrative  (24,  36  ;  25 
Roman  squadron  seems  to  have  been  outnum-  25  ;    25,    27)  whether  there  were  or  were  not 
bered  by  a  Carthaginian  was  after  Syracuse  had  20  other  Carthaginian  ships  in  the  harbour  of 
joined  Carthage  ;  Marcellus,  in  212  B.C.,  had  to  Syracuse  with  Epicydes. 

offer  battle  to  Bomilcar  with  an  inferior  force.  51  Liv.  26,  19. 

4,1  Polyb.   3,  41=App.   lb.   14  =  Liv.   21,   17.  52  Liv.  27,  22.     The  SO  ships  of  Scipio  that 

Livy  adds  20  celoces.  he  mentions  are  the  original  35,   the  18  taken 

47  Liv.  S-),  32.  at    New    Carthage,    and    the    25    taken    from 

48  Tin-    number   captured    at    New    Carthage,  Himilco  and  never  fitted  out. 
Polyb.  10,  17.  ss  p0iyb.  10,  17. 

49  i.e.  150  for  Sicily  and  the  Adriatic  (Liv.  5I  In  estimating  this  tremendous  effort  (280 
24,  11).  plus  35  in  Spain,  the  original  squadron  ships),  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Romans 
of  Cn.  Scipio.  There  were  also  in  Spain  25  were  now  in  part  using  slave  rowers  (Liv. 
prizes  taken  from  Himilco  (Polyb.  3,  96  =  Liv.  24,  11  ;  26,  35);  and  that  some  of  Scipio's 
22,  10},  but  it  appears  from  Polyb.  10,  17,  that  crews  were  pressed  Spaniards  (Polyb.  10,  17  = 
these  were  not  fitted  out.  Liv.  26,  47.) 

Liv.  25,  27.      I  find  it  impossible  to  make 


paper,  the  actual  loss  may  have  been  something  like  450.55  But  the  total  of 
Tim)  for  the  Roman  loss  is  much  too  high,  even  on  Polybius'  own  showing  ; 
for  it  includes  the  114  prizes  taken  at  Hermaea,  which  are  thus  reckoned 
twice  over.  The  Roman  loss  cannot  well  have  been  much  over  500.56  Even 
so,  these  are  very  large  figures  ;  as  large  as  for  the  eighteen  years  preceding 
and  including  Actimn. 

Even,  however,  if  the  numbers  arrived  at  in  this  paper  seem  more 
probable  than  the  traditional  ones,  there  still  remain  two  difficulties — the 
question  of  light  craft,  and  Polybius'  use  of  the  word  Trevrrjpris.  The  Roman 
figures  are,  of  course,  inclusive  totals,  comprising  all  ships  under  Roman 
control,  Italiot  or  otherwise :  it  seems  that  the  Romans  did  not  call  on 
Hieron's  navy  at  all.  But  a  question  arises  whether  the  fleet  numbers  do  or 
do  not  include  light  craft;  also  whether  in  the  third  century  B.C.  light  craft 
took  part  in  fleet  actions  at  all,  as  they  undoubtedly  often  did  in  the  second. 
I  am  not  going  into  this  here  ;  but  light  craft  (by  which  I  mean  lembi  and 
other  ships  smaller  than  pentekontors)  raise  many  difficulties  in  studying 
ancient  fleet  numbers,  and  may  be  responsible  for  many  apparently  purpose- 
less exaggerations.57  The  fleets  of  the  first  Punic  war  were  of  course 
accompanied  by  a  few  scouts,58  but  whether  these  be  included  or  not,  they 
would  be  much  the  same  for  both  sides,  and  would  not  alter  the  proportions. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  to  refer  to  Polybius'  use  of  irevr^pr]^.  That  these 
large  numbers  of  quinqueremes  were  not  all  quinqueremes  is  now  almost  a 
commonplace.  Other  wars  apart,  we  know  that  in  this  one  both  sides  had 
triremes59  and  pentekontors,60  and  the  Carthaginians  quadriremes.61  The  same 
usage  of  quinqueremis  is  not  infrequently  found  in  the  third  decade  of  Livy,  no 
doubt  taken  from  Polybius ;  and  Livy  sometimes  supplies  a  sort  of  proof  that 
quiiiqiiercmes  do  not  always   mean  quinqueremes.62      The  real   question,   of 

85  Mylae  50,  Sardinia  20  to  40,  Tyndaris  18,  passim)  ;    and  the    explanation   must   be   that 

Ecnomus   100,    Hermaea  something  over  114,  Polyxenidas'  battle  fleet  of  100  ships  was  ac- 

say  130,  Aegates  Ins.  120  :  or  about  438  to  458  companied  by  some  100  light  craft,  which  Livy 

all  told.     Polybius  adds  another  30  or  so  for  has  not  given.     As  we  fortunately  know  that 

the  supposed  battle  before  Mylae.  10  years  earlier  Philip  V.  had  fought  in  these 

56  Boodes  takes  17,  Tyndaris  9,  Ecnomus  24,  waters  with  a  fleet  containing  150  lembi  to  53 
first  storm  (with  Hermaea)  170,  second  storm  cataphraets,  we  can  sec  that  Appian  is  probably 
27.  year  of  Drepana  223  =  470.  Add  some  10  right,  especially  as  Polyxenidas  was  engaging 
for  Mylae,  and  an  unknown  loss  at  the  Aegates  an  enemy  151  strong  :  and  for  once  we  com- 
Insulae.     Polybius  gets  his  figure  by  counting  pletely  justify  the  larger  number. 

the  Hermaea  prizes  again,  and  adding  another  :"  Polyb.  1,    53,    9,    o't   ■npoir\t'iv    tldur pivot 

123  for  the  second  storm. — Refitted  prizes  make  \ifj.Qot. 

the  Roman  and  Carthaginian  totals  overlap  to  59  Polyb.  1,  20;  Duilius'  column. 

some  extent,  perhaps  70  to  80  ships.  ,;    Polyb.  1,  20  ;  1,  73. 

57  Perhaps  I  may  give  one  instance  of  what  I  6;  Polyb.  1,  47. 

mean.     Battle  of  Corycus,  191   b.<  .  ;   Livy  and  Ba  For      instance,     Marcellus'     fleet     before 

Appian  agree  exactly  as  to  the  Roman  fleet,  but  Syracuse  is  60  quinqueremes   Polyb.  S,  4  (6)  = 

Livy  gives  Polyxenidas  100  ships  (70  cataphraets,  Liv.  24,  34    :  but  he  has  a  quadrirem<     I. 

SOapertae),  while  Appian(6'yr.  22)  gives  him  200.  30)  and  2  triremes  and  3  smaller  crafl    Liv.  26, 

Now  Appian,  who  himself  wrote  on  the  Roman  39).     (I  do  not  say  that  the  smaller  craft  are 

navy,  does  not,  as  a  rule,  throw  naval  numbers  reckoned  in  the  60  )     Again,  Liv.  21,  1H  and  50, 

about    anyhow;    (for   the    proof    of    this    see  the  praetor  M.  Aemilius  cuts  off  and  captures  7 

Kromayer's   article  in   f'hilologus  before   cited,  Carthaginian  quinqueremes,  with  1,700  milites 


course,  is  Polybius'  credit ;  and  I  think  we  can  go  a  little  nearer  than  the 
mere  assertion,  no  doubt  partly  true,  that  he  used  irevrrjprj^  simply  for 
'  warship,'  as  some  writers  use  Tpirjprjs. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  for  the  Roman  navy  of  the  third  and  second 
centuries  B.C.,  at  any  rate,  the  quinquereme  was  the  standard  warship,  quite 
apart  from  the  first  Punic  war.  If  Rome  engaged  to  aid  a  foreign  power,  it- 
was  with  quinqueremes.63  If  a  victory  was  to  be  announced,  a  quinquereme 
was  sent.64  Envoys  and  commissioners  always  sailed  in  quinqueremes,  usually 
one  apiece.65  It  was  the  typical  Roman  ship ;  and  after  260  B.C.  was  very 
likely  almost  the  only  type  of  ship  built  in  Rome  itself,66  seeing  that  the 
treaty  cities  supplied  open  vessels,  triremes  or  lesser,  and  did  not  (except 
Carthage  after  202  B.C.)  supply  cataphracts. 

Fortunately,  we  do  possess  one  trustworthy  piece  of  evidence  of  the 
composition  of  a  Carthaginian  fleet  in  219  B.C. ;  probably  a  Roman  squadron 
was  very  similar.  When  Hannibal  set  out  on  his  march,  he  handed  over  to  his 
brother  Hasdrubal  his  ships,  consisting  of  50  quinqueremes,  2  quadriremes, 
and  5  triremes.67  Polybius  rather  apologises  for  being  so  precise,  but  says  he 
took  the  details  from  the  inscription  on  bronze,  which  he  had  read,  left  by 
Hannibal  himself  in  the  temple  of  Hera  Lacinia.  This  would  make  the 
proportion  of  quinqueremes  in  a  squadron  sometimes  as  high  as  88  per  cent.68 
The  Afcadian,  mediterraneus  homo,  may  be  pardoned  for  talking  of  a  fleet  as 
a  fleet  of  quinqueremes  when  in  fact  12  per  cent,  of  the  number  were  some- 
thing else  ;  while  the  philosophic  historian  would  certainly  consider  the  dis- 
crepancy supremely  unimportant.  When  Polybius  has  good  authority 
before  him,  Hannibal  or  an  admiral  of  Rhodes,  he  gives  precise  details; 
elsewhere  it  may  be  that  he  is  satisfied  with  conveying  what  he  considers  to 
be  a  substantially  correct  impression  ;  and,  after  all,  he  himself  had  seen  a 
fleet  of  the  old  Roman  navy,  perhaps  the  last  of  its  fleets  to  go  into  action. 
For  that  navy  scarcely  survived  the  destruction  of  its  great  antagonist ;  and 
Rome  was  content  to  fight  with  ships  of  Greece  and  Asia  until  the  lex 
Gabinia  opened  a  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  sea. 

W.  W.  Tarn. 

nautaeque,  i.e.  about  242  to  a  ship  ;  the  roivers  exactly   that    of   the    74    under   Nelson;    the 

on  a  quinquereme  were  more  than  that,  according  quadrireme    and   trireme  corresponded   to    the 

to  1  orybius.  smaller  ships  of  the  line  of  60  or  fewer  guns,  the 

3a  Liv.  26,  24,  the  treaty  with  Aetolia.     That  'light  craft'  to  frigates  and    brigs,    while  the 

quinqueremes  were  in   fact  s.-nt  appears  frtm  heptereis  and  dekereis  of  the  Hellenistic  powers 

Liv.  27,  32,  where  on  15  of  the  ships  Sulpicius  took  the  place  of  the  ships  of  110  and  120  guns 

terries  4,000  troops  over  the  Gulf  of  Corinth,  built    by    France    and    Spain.     Though    both 

giving   an   average   of  266    on    a   ship,  which  quinquereme  and  trireme  fought  in  the  line,  the 

Kromayer  says  is  the  highest  to  be  found.  fact    that    Livy   classes   triremes   among  ships 

i  olyb.  10,  19  =  Liv.  26,  51.  minoris  foriuae,  as  opposed  to  the  quinqueremes, 

15  Polyb.  15,  2;  Liv.  28,  17  ;  29,  9  ;  30,  25;  &c,    majoris   formae   (37,    23;  36,    41),  shews 

30,  26  ;  .31,  11.  some  well-marked  distinction  between  the  two 

I  think  there  is  no  instance  of  any  other  other   than    mere  size  ;    no    doubt   the  line  of 

type  being  built.  division  is  between  the  galleys  with  little  oars 

"olyb.  3,  33  =  Liv.  21,  22.  rowed  by  one  man  and    those  with  great  oars 

It  I  may  venture  on  one  modern  parallel,  rowed  by  several  men,  a  distinction  which  to 

the  place  of  the  quiuquereme  at  this  time  was  a  spectator  would  be  most  conspicuous. 


[Routes  followed :  («)  Pandemia,  Mihallitch,  Kermasti,  Kavakly, 
Susurlu,  Eski  Manyas,  Yeni  Manyas,  Alexa,  Pandemia;  (b)  Pandemia,  Erdek, 
Karabogha,  Gunen,  Pomak  Keui,  Hautcha,  Pandemia;  (c)  Soma,  Balukiser, 
Mudania,  Brusa.] 

1.  Pandemia,  in  private  possession:  stele  0'40x0"25  m.,  top  broken, 
with  relief : — 

(1.)  Worshipper  with  sheep;  altar;  (r.)  Apollo  standing,  with  kithara  in 
left  band,  patera  in  right.     Below  (letters  ,015) : 


Al"10  A  Aft  Nl  '  AiroWmvi. 

The  relief  is  of  a  type  very  commonly  found  in  the  district ;  cf.  J.H.S. 
xxiii.  87  (39),  xxiv.  20  (1),  xxv.  58  (13). 

2.  Kermasti,  at  the  Konak.  Two  fragments  of  white  marble  epistyle, 
consisting  of  dentils,  frieze  of  bucrania,  and  double  architrave  :  both  frag- 
ments have  been  broken  across.  The  architrave  is  0*12  m.  deep,  the  whole 
epistyle  030.  The  architrave  is  inscribed  in  letters  "02  high  with  apices  and 
broken  crossbars  in  H,  E  : — 

(a)  0'64  long,  frieze  missing  : 

(6)  0-60  long: 


(c)  A  third  fragment,  0"33  long,  in  the  garden  of  the  museum  at  Brusa, 
reads  : 



The  whole  therefore  runs  : 

MetX]>/T07roXetT<wi>  Trjv  ayadi]V  rrj[<;  7r]o\e&>9  Ti^>/z;  /cai  tov  vaov  avTrjs 

KaT€<TKevaae[v  \ 
6K  twv  ihlcov  Eva^ficov  7rop^)U/?07ra»\>;?. 

62  F.  W.  HASLUCK 

These  fragments  probably  came  from  an  excavation  on  the  site  of 
Miletopolis  at  the  fifth  kilometre  stone  from  Kermasti  on  the  road  to 
Mihallitch,  where  I  have  seen  at  various  times  a  quantity  of  Roman 
architectural  detail  including  green  marble  shafts,  white  marble  twisted 
columns,  elaborate  circular  ceiling  panels,  and  various  fragments  of  archi- 
traves, etc.  The  site  was  apparently  plundered  for  the  building  of  the 
mosque  at  Kavakly,  where  there  is  a  corresponding  green  marble  column 
A  Tyche,  not  specially  characterized  as  a  City  Tyche,  and  never  in  a  temple, 
occurs  on  Miletopolitan  coins  of  Crispina,  J.  Domna,  Gordian  III.  (medallion) 
and  Otacilia  (Mionnet,  ii.  Nos.  363,  364,  368,  371;. 

3.  Ibid. :  Yellowish  marble  slab,  broken  top  and  bottom,  0'35  m.  (left 
edge) — 029  (right  edge)  high,  020  broad,  '085  thick :  dowel  holes  in  both 
edges:  letters  '01 — "0075  high.     From  two  squeezes1 : — 

I  1^ 


.  A  PTYPFIoT1  A  EYTTpcIl  iropo£r.Nc 
lAPTYPLP^  ?irroW|NOYEr*AiP^ 


,-_-     w\Ai    I      NMLT^^oE 

-YXHNno    |=r  c,Q]A^on?r<n 

OO'^OIA^'  '  "*         {IaW^YAAIU 
w/Xir^p-  \WrtBoYA£YoY>^oNr, 

tA|AElA£EXoY    ^^No,,\|AiKLI 

\0~~    N.\|.n.|<E      H^ENC      A-rvN<j>PoH 
spF-HNrrA,,    El^'^lH,  'rcPYl   T, 

Tp/      5TE:A||<AlA^P,A,ni-EYE 

iN^r^Ao^  aa  r  rpo>HAONHh 
lAOlZ'C'YNcri     nrc^KY^   lTcut|or. 
XopoY^AMYNo,V/\iPoh""  ,'oraEfcoY 
-Tr-F>FI*A        r^PA^lAAYoY 

•\|<,A  »./m  "UPsOlrHpArppotAEXp^ 
O I N  O  £  r  1 N  OY  *P A  •  ^  * YM 4>EP<?N 

Y^H^O^  n  NOT  HAOTT  El 


1  The  better  is  too  broken  for  reproduction,  whence  discrepancies   between  the  facsimile  and 



(p]c\oi<;  (3oij6ei. 
6]vp.ov  Kpdret. 
a]8iKa  (pevye. 
fiaprupei  oaia. 
5      rf\hovt]<i  Kpt'iTGi. 

ir\povoiav  (rtp.a  ?). 

a]8c/ca>  /i?;  XP&. 

(p]iXi'av  dydira. 
10      ci~\vaihela$  («7r)c^of. 

86£ai>  Scoo/ce. 

dperrjv  eiralvei. 

irpdacre  Bitcaia. 

Ti\/J.i]v  a7roSo?. 
15     cpi\oi<i  evvoei. 

i]X0pov<;  dfivvov. 

<Tvyyei>€is  cia/cei 

K^aKLas  uTre^ou. 

fj.ia]oivo<;  ytvov. 
20      t]«  i&ia  (f)v\aaae. 

(piXwi  yapi^ov. 

vfiptp,  p.€t<T€t. 

eixpripios  ylvov. 

25     ...  o<9  .  . 

7rt(p)a<;  e  .  .  . 

irdcriv  (pi\o(f)[p6i'ei. 

yvvaiKos  dpx\e- 

aavrbv  eu  7rol[et  1 

evirpocn'iyopos  yivo[y.  5 

diTOKplvov  ey  fcatpco[t. 

irovei  fier   €v/cX€i[a<;. 

dpLaprLav  p.era[v6ec. 

6(f>6aXp,ov  Kpdre^t,. 

(piXcav  (pvXaaae.  10 

(SovXevov  xp6va>[i. 

7rp[a]crae  avv  vo/jlcoi. 

t[o  Bik  Qatov  vep,e. 

opovoiav  cia/cei. 

/j,]t]0ei'b[^]  /caTa(pp6i>[ei.        15 

ciTropprjTa  Kpinrre. 

t]o  Kparov/J,  (pofiov. 

yjpovtoi  ircareve. 

vale  7T/30?  rjSovijv. 

TTpOGKVVei   TO   0€to[v  20 

/caipop.  7rpoa8e)(o[v. 

eydpav  SiaXvov. 

eVi  poop-ijL  {firf)  Kavyoi. 

yrjpa<;  TrpoaSe^ov. 

XP<*>  T<^i  o-vfi<pepovT[i.  25 

ev^fpLtav  dcrfc[ei. 

■tyevhos  al<ryyvo\y. 

dirkyOeiav  <f)6vye. 

iriarevco[v]  firj  a  .  .  . 

irXovrei  a  .  .  .  .30 

6pboX6y[et  .  .  . 

The  date  of  this  curious  collection  of  aphorisms  seems  from  the  ortho- 
graphy and  lettering  to  be  about  300  B.C.  Its  purpose  will  probably  never 
be  known  unless  the  preamble  of  it  or  a  similar  inscription  comes  to 

The  following  copies  of  inscriptions  were  courteously  communicated  to 
me  by  Mr.  D.  A.  Renjiperis  of  the  Regie. 

4.  Alpat  Keui 


arpa\jrjyhv  aperr}?  e[ve- 

ko\  /cal  €vi'ot'a<;  tt]<;  e[l<;  eavrov  ? 

64  R  W.   HASLUCK 

5.  Melde  (the  site  of  Miletopolis) :  stone  with  right  edge  broken. 


ITINIARMINIA  in<i>  Arm(e)nia 

BENDOMITIO  su]b  (C)n.  Domitio  [Corbulon-  ? 

EI  EG  i  e  (l)eg[atus  ?  Caesar-  ? 

:  SAVGPROPR  is  Aug:  pro  pr[aetore  ? 


OHONOR  •  C  •  AVS  honoifis]  cans[a  ? 

AHPAnAPAXEIMAI  iv  %A&\hr,pq  7rapaXec/xda[a^ 

The  Latin  is  evidently  ignorantly  copied,  but  the  mention  of  Armenia 
suggests  that  the  inscription  refers  to  a  legate  of  Cn.  Domitius  Corbulo, 
possibly  Ummidius  Quadratus  (Dessau  Prosop.  Bom.  600),  whose  family  later 
held  office  in  Asia;  but  conjecture  is  unprofitable  till  a  better  copy  of  the 
inscription  is  to  hand. 

6.  Melde:  letters  with  apices,  A,  E  with  disconnected  cross-strokes: — 

/  TITOCCJ)/  Tito?  <t>\[aovio<; 

OYIOYAC  Titov  (v)lov  'A«r[/c\^7r- 

PEINAAT  uiSrjs  Kv]pelva  aTrfoTeXecra? 

TEIMACTHNCEBAC  rei/xas  rojv  %e/3ao-[T(t)v  iv  tg> 

AHTOnOAEITHNlEP  Mei]\r)T07ro\eira)v  iep<p 

XHCAC  teal  yup,paaiap]Xr]aa<i  ? 

7.  Melde : 

OAH[MO]l  6  8i][fto]<; 

NAlONnOMnHIONTNAO  T]vdlov  Uo/xinjiov  Tva(t)o[v 

ONMATNONAYTOKPATOPA  v[fiv  Mdyvov,  avroKpdropa 

3TPITONIHTHPAKAIEYEP  T]o  rpirov,  amrfjpa  kul  edep- 

ETHNTOYTEAHMOYKAI  y]eTr)v  toO  re  Btjfiov  teal 

THIASI  AinAZHSEflO  tt}?  Walas  Trd<Ti)$,  eVo- 

THNrHITEKAl©AAAS  7t]tt]v  y*}<?  re  /cat  daXdcr- 

HIAPETHIENEKAKAI  &]*]<;>  aperf}?  eveica  zeal 

NOIAZEISEYAYTON  ev]i>oia<;  el?  e<v>avToi>. 

Other  honorary  inscriptions  of  Pompey  in  Asia  have  been  found  at 
Thymbra2  and  in  Mytilene.3  The  present  dates  from  the  passing  of  the 
Manilian  law  (66  B.C.),  but  Pompey  is  not  known  to  have  been  in  this 
district  at  the  time,  though  acorfjpa  ical  evepyeTtjv  r  ov  8  ij  jjlov  evvoias  eve/ca 
669   eavrov   seem    to  imply   personal   relations.       Miletopolis  makes   its  first 

-  C.I.G.  3608  =  Dorpfeld,  Troja,  58.  :i  I.G.  163-5. 


appearance  in  history  as  the  scene  of  Fimbria's  victory  over  Mithradates  in 
85  B.C.4 

The  character  of  the  above  group  of  inscriptions,  especially  the  early  (3) 
and  the  important  (7)  makes  the  attribution  to  Cyzicus  of  the  long  series  of 
inscriptions  from  Ulubad  more  than  ever  problematical. 

8.  Yali  Chiftlik  :  copy  of  M.  Alphonse  Serafimoff. 

ATAOHITYXHI  'A7a6T/t  Ti/^t. 

AYPCW4>PONlOC  Avp.  1a><pp6vio<: 

OENEriHKOH  0e$  i-rrriKOtp 

AlONYCNKEBPhN  biovvom  Ke/3pr)v[{<p  ? 


Dedications  to  Dionysus  are  scarce  in  the  district  (Lebas  1100.  Mihallitch, 
Ath.  Mitth.'ix.  17  (3),  Panderma,  J.H.S.  xxv.  57  (7),  Gunen) :  Bromios  and 
Mystae  are  mentioned  in  an  inscription  of  Beychiftlik  (  =  Yali-chif  tlik)  i?.6'.if. 
xxv.  874  (20)  =  5«/o^ai/»79  i.  330  (12). 

9.  Yeni  Manyas,  in  the  street :  marble  block  077  in.  X  064  with  relief 
of  wreath  in  sunk  panel ;  below,  inscription,  0"29  deep,  in  letters  '02  high, 
much  worn  and  defaced. 

OY    .    .    .  AHO 



lANTAAlAIH        NH 
I  .  .   (J)ANOOIN  IA 




The  honorary  character  of  the  monument  is  shewn  by  the  relief  and  the 
frequent  occurrence  of  aTecpavos  and  alSicos  in  the  mangled  inscription. 

Tchakyrdja  : — 

10.     In  private   house:  fragment  of  slab  with  sunk  panel;  on  edge,  in 
letters  of  late  form  "03  m.  high  : 

ICANTIOXOY  ®4<r]v;'AvTi6xov. 

4  O.I.G.  6855.     Cf.  Memnou  34,  Frontin.  iii.  17.  5.     Oros.  vi.  2.  10. 
H.S. — VOL.  XXVU.  F 

66  F.   W.  HASLUCK 

11.  Step  of  school-house:  altar-shaped  stone,  1-10  m.  broad,  0*50  high. 
Along  the  upper  profile  (letters  "035)  : 

DCECTHTICT  <-  0-45  ->  AI-MATIEI 

v7T€v6vv]o<i  €<tt(o  r(f])^  r[vp,  {3  copulas  ey/c]\i)fia,TC  el  [  Se  T£?  etc. 

12.  In  private  house  :  marble  stele,  075  X  0'48  m.,  with  relief  of  (from 
left)  four  worshippers,  sacrifice  of  bull,  large  plain  altar.  Below  (letters  "02' 
high) : 

MEAEATPOEKAIGEOZENOS  MeXeaypo?  fcal  Seogevcx; 

KAIMENANAPOZOinPHTOMAXOY  kcu  MevavSpos  oi  UpoTo/jbdxov 

AIIBPONTAiniEYXHN  Ad  Bpovratwi  evytfv. 

The  stone  is  said  to  be  from  a  site  between  Tchakyrdja  and  Hadji  Paon. 
The  dedication  to  Zeus  Brontaios  is  interesting  in  connexion  with  the 
autonomous  coin-types  of  Poemanenum,5  Obv.  Zeus  head ;  Rev.  Fulmen. 
Zeus  Hypsistos  Brontaios  is  mentioned  in  an  inscription  from  Mihallitch 
(Lebas  1099  =  Mori.  Fig.  PI.  133.2  and  p.  115=Bev.  Philol.  i.  S8  =  Ath.  Mitth.. 
iv.  21.     Tchinili  Kiosk  Gated.  Sculp.  126). 

Poroak  Keui  (left  bank  of  Aesepus,  half  an  hour  below  Gunen) : — 

13.  In  the  street:  marble  block,  0*91  m.  x  0485,  '05  thick,  letters  -045v 
much  worn  : 


nn    in    iiiu  iioiitoytx 

FAnol  I    Tf  T 

N       ITI 

'\o\vXios  (JIp)eip,o<;  irapavyeXXi  iraai 
r]ot9  rtjv  XevKe(a)v  kotttovctiv  [Sovrao  ? 
B]r)v(d)piv  Kal   .   . 

The  stone  is  said  to  have  come  from  a  site  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Aesepus  opposite  the  hot  springs  of  Gunen. 

XevKea-(l)  Xevicaia,  the  white  poplar,  (2)  axotvos  (Hesych.),  rope:  an 
announcement  engraved  on  stone  can  only  refer  to  the  former.  The  white 
poplar  was  associated  with  Zeus  and  Herakles  (see  Frazer  on  Paus.  v.  5.  5, 
Boetticher,  Baumkultus,  p.  441  sqq.)  and  the  tree  referred  to  may  have  been 
one  of  special  sanctity  :  it  is  noteworthy  that  Julius  Primus  does  not  forbid 
the  cutting,  but  makes  a  tariff-charge  as  if  cutting  was  habitual.6 

5  J.If.S.  xxvi.  23  ff.  known  from  a  Conn  inscription  (B.C.ff.  xxiii. 

8  A  festival  called  AevS^oiccnriov  ttjs  "Upas  is       208). 


14.     In  a  garden  :  stele,  0*G4  x  0  33,  with  relief  of  man  on  couch,  woman 
seated,  table,  and  two  slaves  flanking  the  group  :  below  (letters,  *015) : 

APTEMEI  'Aprefiel^ 

£NTITTATPOY  ! 'AvriTrdrpou 



14a.  The  inscription,  republished  with  a  commentary  by  Dr.  Wilhelm  in 
Bcitrdge  zur  Alien  Gcschichte  (v.  (1905),  pp.  2(J3-302),  is  still  to  be  seen  in  the 
ihancel  of  the  church  of  S.  Nicholas  at  Chavutzi  (Kiepert's  Hautcha).  The 
stone  measures  0"85  x  0'G3  m.,  the  left  edge  being  entire  :  my  copy  agrees  with 
Linmios',  except  that  he  omitted  to  note  two  upright  strokes  remaining  from 
a  line  above  his  first,  and  the  possibly  significant  fact  that  his  first  line 
ZTPA  .  .  is  set  back  from  the  left  edge  of  the  stone,  as  if  it  had  formed  the 
heading  CETpa[ri]yoi  ?).  Noticeable  peculiarities  in  the  lettering  are  (a)  thin- 
ness of  strokes  throughout;  (b)  tendency  to  cross  the  ends  of  coincident 
diagonal  linos  (JS,  X,  etc.),  which  gives  somewhat  the  effect  of  apices; 
(c)  variation  in  form  of  letters:  thus  p  in  arpa  .  .  is  written  R,  elsewhere  P, 
TT  varies  between  F1  and  FT ;  (d)  variation  in  size  of  letters :  they  are 
normally  (11.  2,  3,  9,  11,  13,  14,  15)  -025  high,  but  rise  to  '03  in  11  4-8,  10,  to 
0325  in  I.  1  and  to  -045  in  I.  12.  These  irregularities  suggest  that  the 
names  were  added  to  the  list  year  by  year. 

15.  Tchatal-Aghil,  near  Brusa,  church  of  Theologos;  slab  0*82  by 
0*66  :  in  tabula  ansata  0-32  x  0T8,  letters  -025  : 

EYBOYAE  EvfiovXe 

0EO(f)iAOY  QeocplXov 

P  E  Xal]P€- 

Below,  relief  of  Herm  in  niche. 

This  stone  was  seen  by  Stephan  Gerlach    (1576)    '  half-way    between 

Ulubad  and  Brusa.' " 

F.  W.  Hasluck. 

7  Tiirckisches  Tagebwh  ( Frankfurt,  1674),  p.  257. 

r    2 


It  is  proposed  in  this  paper  to  deal  shortly  with  five  terracottas  in  the 
possession  of  the  writer,  which  seem  of  sufficient  interest  to  be  illustrated. 
The  first  three  are  from  Boeotia,  the  last  two  from  Crete. 

As  is  well  known,  the  most  primitive  Greek  standing  figures  in  terra- 
cotta frequently  take  one  of  two  forms — the  columnar  form,  derived  probably 
from  the  tree  trunk,  and  the  flat  broad  form  (aavk),  taken  apparently  from 
the  shape  of  a  board  of  wood.  These  forms  confirm  the  literary  evidence  that 
the  most  primitive  statues  were  made  of  wood.  The  first  three  terracottas 
illustrate  the  latter  type ;  in  the  second  of  them  the  boardlike  form  has  been 
adapted  by  a  singular  device  to  a  seated  figure. 

Fig.  1.  Primitive  standing  figure  from  Boeotia:  height  024  m.,  greatest 
breadth  0"84  m.,  thickness  0*012  m.  With  the  exception  of  the  head  and  feet, 
the  figure  is  absolutely  flat.  The  arms  consist  of  fin-like  excrescences ;  the  feet 
are  perhaps  the  best  rendered  part  of  the  figure ;  otherwise  the  forms  of  the 
body  are  not  expressed  at  all.  The  edge  of  the  drapery,  nowhere  else  indi- 
cated, is  sharply  defined  above  the  feet. 

More  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  head.  The  primitive  artist  has 
grasped  the  fact  that  the  eyes  are  the  most  important  feature  of  the  face,  and 
has  represented  them  by  large  disks  of  clay  surrounded  by  a  deep  rim.  The 
nose  is  long,  narrow,  and  fiat;  the  mouth  is  not  indicated  at  all.  The  hair  is 
formed  from  one  long  string  of  clay,  which  is  bound  over  the  forehead  and 
crosses  behind  the  head ;  thence  it  falls  in  a  long  lock,  covered  with  a  number 
of  small  indentations,  on  either  side  of  the  face. 

The  artist  clearly  worked  with  the  simplest  of  tools,  apparently  pinching 
the  clay  for  the  most  part  with  his  own  hands— this  is  evidently  the  way  in 
which  the  nose  has  been  formed — and  using  also  a  pointed  instrument  for  the 
feet,  hands,  and  hair.  There  are  traces  of  a  slip  of  white  material  over  the 
whole  figure. 

Such  o-az^Vlike  figures  are  common,  especially  in  Boeotia.1  I  can  find 
no  close  parallel  to  the  treatment  of  the  hair  and  features. 

Fig.  2.  Primitive  seated  figure  from  Boeotia :  height  0145  m.  The  whole 
workmanship  of  this  figure,  when  compared  with  the  last,  seems  to  show  that 

? — • 

1  Cp.  Winter,  Die  ant i ken  Terrakottai,  iii.  pp.  4,  5,  9,  3]. 



it  is  from  the  same  hand.  It  is  an  interesting  variety  of  the  ordinary  primitive 
seated  type ;  instead  of  the  usual  solid  throne  or  seat,  the  figure  is  sustained 
by  a  support  behind,  rather  in  the  style  of  a  modern  photograph  frame.     The 


Fig.   1. 

features  of  the  face  are  almost  identical  with  those  of  the  first  figure;  it  has 
the  same  owl-like  eyes  and  bird-like  nose,  still  further  exaggerated.     The  hair 



is  rendered  in  the  same  way,  but  not  decorated  in  front  with  indentations. 
The  feet  and  lower  edge  of  the  drapery  are  not  represented. 

The  figure  holds  a  smaller  figure  clasped  to  the  breast  with  the  left  arm, 

Fig.  2. 

which  is  far  larger  than  the  right  arm.     The  features  of  the  infant  are  those 
of  the  larger  figure  on  a  small  scale. 

It  is  interesting  that  the  partiality  for  the  boardlike  form  is  so  strong 
that  it  has  been  adapted  to  the  seated  figure.  The  seated  female  figure  hold- 
ing an  infant  is  one  which  is  common  among  terracottas  of  every  period. 



This  type  of  propped  seated  figure  has  been  found  in  several  Greek  sites, 
•&.g.  at  the  Argive  Heraeum 2   and   Tanagra.3      The  only  parallel  to    such  a 

Fig.  3. 

figure  carrying  a  child  is  to  be  found  in  a  terracotta  from  Boeotia  at  Berlin  :4 
this  is  of  a  much  later  style. 

-  Waldstein,  Excavation  of  the  Heraeum,  PL 
VIII.  Wis.  11. 

:;  Athens,  National  Museum,  Xo.  833. 
4  Berlin,  Antiquarium,  Xo.  S34S. 



Fig.  3.  Standing  figure  from  Boeotia  :  height  0'235  m.,  average  thickness 
0011  m.  Here  the  form  of  the  body  is  exactly  similar  to  that  of  No.  1,  except 
that  the  arms  are  longer  and  the  feet  are  not  indicated.  The  figure  is  covered 
with  a  slip  of  white  material,  on  which  are  faint  traces  of  red  paint  run- 
ning perpendicularly  down  the  centre  of  the  body  and  horizontally  at  each 
side.  The  head,  which  is  damaged,  shows  a  very  considerable  advance.  The 
eyes,  though  not  exactly  in  the  right  plane,  are  carefully  rendered,  and  the 
cheeks  and  chin  are  well  modelled.  The  head  is  surmounted  by  a  high  polos 
coloured  red ;  the  hair  is  scarcely  indicated. 

Fig.  4. 

By  analogy  from  sculpture  in  stone,  the  figure  seems  to  belong  to  the  late 
sixth  century.  It  is  interesting  to  see  that  the  conservative  instinct  of  the 
Greek  prefers  the  flat,  shapeless  form  of  the  body  at  a  time  when  art  is  suffici- 
ently advanced  to  enable  the  far  more  difficult  features  of  the  face  to  be 
represented  with  some  success.  In  this  respect  the  rendering  of  the  human 
form  in  terracotta  differs  from  that  in  stone,  where  perfection  begins  with  the 
feet  and  finally  reaches  the  head.     In  works  of  sculpture  the  artist  naturally 



tried  to  excel  in  every  part  of  the  work  ;  in  terracottas,  religious  conservatism 
demanded  the  form  to  which  it  was  accustomed,  and  it  was  only  in  the  head 
that  the  artist  ventured  to  use  his  growing  skill  and  knowledge. 

The  two  Cretan  figures,  which  were  found  together  in  a  tomb  near  Retimo, 
are  both  equestrian,  and  represent  uncommon  types. 

Fig.  4.  Group  of  two  horses  and  driver  :  height  012  m.,  extreme  breadth 
01  m.  This  group  is  made  of  dark,  coarse  clay,  baked  very  hard  and  covered 
with  a  slip  of  white  material.  It  represents  a  man  mounted  on  a  chariot; 
but,  owing  to  the  exigencies  of  the  material,  horses,  man,  and  chariot 
are  all  moulded  together.  The  chariot  wheels,  which  are  solid,  appear  on 
either  side  of  the  back  legs  of  the  horses.  The  structure  and  attachment 
of  the  chariot  are  not  shown,  and  its  presence  is  only  indicated  by  the  wheels. 

Fig.  5. 

Tt  represents  no  doubt  a  war  or  racing  chariot,  consisting  of  wheels  with  a 
cross-bar  supporting  a  platform  on  which  the  driver  stood ;  the  convenience  of 
a  war-chariot  which  could  be  easily  mounted  or  dismounted  from  is  obvious, 
and  the  racing-car  preserved  the  form  of  the  war-chariot. 

Chief  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  horses.  Their  heads  are  carefully 
modelled,  particularly  the  ears  and  crest ;  their  manes  are  indicated  with  black 
paint,  of  which  considerable  traces  remain.  The  head  of  one  is  raised,  giving 
a  pleasing  variety.     The  legs  and  back  are  only  roughly  blocked  out. 

Less  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  charioteer.  His  head  is  rudely 
sketched,  the  large  curved  nose  being  the  only  marked  feature  ;  the  forms  of 
the  body  are  not  rendered  at  all.  On  the  left  side  there  are  indications  that 
the  arms  stretched  along  the  horses'  backs.     This  fact  and  the  position  of  the 


horses'  front  legs,  which  are  planted  firmly  on  the  ground  before  them,  seem 
to  show  that  the  group  represents  a  charioteer  reining  in  his  horses. 

Fig.  5.  Horseman  carrying  faggots  :  height  0T45  m.,  extreme  width  0T15  m. 
'This  group  is  of  the  same  material  as  the  last  figure,  and  was  apparently  also 
covered  with  a  slip  of  white  paint,  of  which  few  traces  remain.  Here  the  horse 
is  subsidiary,  and  the  chief  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  rider.  The  horse  is 
of  the  form  found  on  many  Greek  sites,  and  little  attempt  is  made  at  modelling ; 
the  legs  and  tail  are  thick,  the  head  small.  The  faggots  consist  of  spikes  of 
clay,  built  up  on  the  top  of  one  another.  The  rider  sits  astride  on  the  top,  his 
legs  projecting  in  front  and  his  hands  on  either  side  of  the  horse's  mane.  His 
face  is  clearly  intended  to  be  of  a  comic  character.  He  wears  a  pointed  beard  ; 
the  lips  are  thick  and  the  mouth  large.  The  ears  are  shapeless  excrescences; 
the  nose  is  large,  and  the  eyes  are  formed  of  disks  attached  to  either  side  of  it. 
The  head  rises  to  a  peak'  at  the  back.  In  short,  the  figure  is  of  that  grotesque 
character  which  occasionally  appears  in  Greek  art  of  every  period,  from  the 
early  sculptures  of  the  Athenian  Acropolis  down  to  the  late  Hellenistic  grot- 
esque terracottas  of  Asia  Minor. 

As  is  the  case  with  the  other  Cretan  terracottas,  these  equestrian  figures 
find  their  closest  parallel  among  the  terracottas  of  Cyprus. 6  They  seem  to 
show  that  in  Crete  too  is  to  be  found  something  of  the  charm  and  naivetd  of 
primitive  Greek  art  of  the  mainland. 

Edw.  S.  Forster. 

5  Winter,  op.  cit.  p.  15. 


All  students  of  Eusebius   will  feel   grateful  to    Mr.    J.    L.   Myres  for 

his  attempt,  in  the  last  volume  of  this  Journal1  to  discover  the  original 
text  underlying  the  list  of  thalassocracies,  preserved  in  the  Chronica  of 
Eusebius,  and  to  reassert  its  value  as  historical  evidence.  The  problem 
that  Mr.  Myres  has  set  himself  is  rendered  difficult  not  only  by  the 
general  obscurity  in  which  the  sources  of  early  Greek  history  are  shrouded 
and  by  our  almost  total  ignorance  of  the  history  of  many  of  the  thalassocrats 
daring  the  period  assigned  to  them  in  the  list,  but  by  the  complicated 
questions  of  textual  criticism  which  surround  the  Chronica,  and  which  this 
problem  raises  in  a  particularly  aggravated  form.  While  not  venturing  to 
follow  Mr.  Myres  through  the  wealth  of  historical  learning,  which  he  has 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  subject,  I  have  thought  that  I  might  be  able  to 
contribute  something  by  bringing  my  own  studies  in  the  Chronica  into 
relation  to  the  general  question. 

From  this  point  of  view,  §3  in  Mr.  Myres's  article,  which  deals  with  the 
text  and  its  use  by  Eusebius,  is  the  most  important.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  Mr.  Myres,  whose  article  shows  an  acquaintance  with  the  essays  on 
the  Chronica  contained  in  Von  Gutschmid's  Klcinc  Schriften  (1889),  and  with 
Schone's  Weltchronik  dcs  Eus,  bius  (1900),  has  not  devoted  a  little  space  to 
the  general  critical  problem  of  the  Chronica,  the  more  so,  as  he  sometimes 
drops  into  a  phraseology  not  consistent  with  the  views  he  quotes  from 
Schone.  For  instance,  he  frequently  refers  to  the  Armenian  version  of  the 
Chronici  Canones  as  Eusebius,  and  to  the  Latin  version  as  Jerome,  as  though 
the  Armenian  version  were  identical  with  the  original  Greek  in  a  way 
in  which  Jerome's  version  is  not.  In  one  passage,  p.  92  21,  he  distinguishes 
between  the  Canon  and  the  Chronicon,  as  though  the  Chronicon  were 
identical  with  the  Chronograph ia,  instead  of  being  the  title  of  the  whole 
work.  A  brief  description  of  the  Chronica  and  of  recent  critical  opinion 
in  relation  to  it  may  therefore  be  useful  with  a  view  to  removing  confusion. 

The  Chronica  of  Eusebius  was  a  Greek  work  in  two  books,  called 
respectively  the  Chronographia  and  the  Chronici  canones.  The  Chronographia 
is  a  chronological  treatise,  consisting  largely  of  excerpts  from  previous  writers, 
and  is  preserved  in  an  Armenian   version.     The  Chronici  canones  or  canons 

1  For  convenience  of  reference,  Mr.  Myres'a  table  is  rebate,!  on  p.  76  of  this  article. 















quoted  by  | 



con  I. 
x  168  Mai, 

p.  225 

— ]  shows 
that  the 
name  is 
but  the ' 

and  dura- 
tion of 
>ea-power.  < 



xnd  dura- 
tion of 


do  years 



reduced  to 
years  B.C. 




Bates  and 





128  1S8 





1056  1046 


Lydi   (qui    et 













964  954 








{ 1009) 
\  1050  \ 

49.  90.  95 

1 1007) 

\    966  V 

879  869 





(.1055  J 

l    961  J 
92.  41.  46 


c  >  © 

3        i-i 




S00  790 















767  757 




25  or  6 


25  (20) 



742  732 





a  go 

23  (32) 



33  23 





5  C^ 

















































































In  J 
































1  Reprinted  from  Mr.  Myrcs's  article,  Vol.  XXVI.  p.  88.) 


are  a  chronological  table,  extending  from  the  birth  of  Abraham  to  the 
twentieth  year  of  Constantine,  and  are  preserved  not  only  in  the  Armenian 
version  already  mentioned,  but  in  the  Latin  version  of  Jerome,  while  a 
few  entries  are  reproduced  in  a  Syriac  epitome.  The  original  Greek  of 
both  books  is  lost,  but  can  be  restored  in  large  measure  from  quotations  and 
parallel  passages  in  Syncellus  and  other  writers.  Schone  in  his  Weltchronil; 
des  Eusebius  has  argued  that  of  the  two  versions  of  the  Chronici  canones 
the  Armenian  has  completely  transformed  the  original  arrangement  of 
columns  and  spaces,  while  Jerome  adheres  line  for  line  to  the  arrangement  of 
his  original.  I  have  endeavoured  in  my  introduction  to  the  Bodleian 
Manuscript  of  Jeromes  Eusebius  (1905)  to  show  that  Jerome  adheres  not 
only  line  for  line  but  page  for  page  to  his  original  so  far  as  the  part  of  the 
canons  down  to  the  year  of  Abraham  1504  (512  B.C.)  is  concerned,  after  which 
date  he  would  appear  to  preserve  only  the  general  arrangement,  not  the 
exact  lineation  and  pagination  of  Eusebius.  Jerome  does  not  attempt  to 
correct  Eusebius,  but  has  made  numerous  insertions,  relating  mainly  to 
Roman  history.  The  Armenian  translator  on  the  other  hand  neither  amends 
nor  adds  to  his  original,  but  often  omits  events,  apparently  by  oversight. 
Schone  holds  that  the  Armenian  version  is  made  from  an  earlier,  and 
Jerome's  from  a  later  and  revised  edition  of  the  Chronici  canones  of  Eusebius. 
His  reasons  for  this  are  stated  in  his  Weltchronik  etc.  pp.  260-7.  In 
my  introduction  quoted  above  I  have  left  this  an  open  question,  but  further 
study  has  convinced  me  that  the  differences  on  which  Schone  has  based 
his  case  are  with  one  exception  of  the  same  kind  as  the  differences  between 
those  manuscripts  of  Jerome  which  retain  the  original  arrangement  and  those 
which,  like  the  London  manuscript,  have  substituted  a  different  arrangement, 
drawn  up  with  no  great  care.2  The  single  exception  is  the  inclusion  in 
Jerome  of  a  column  of  Mycenaean  kings,  which  is  absent  from  the  Armenian 
Canons,  though  such  a  list  is  found  in  the  Chronographia.  It  is  impossible  to 
base  a  theory  of  a  separate  edition  on  this  one  instance,  since  the  Armenian 
translator,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  transformed  the  arrangement  of  the  book, 
might  easily  have  omitted  a  column  by  accident.3  It  would  therefore  appear 
that  the  differences  in  arrangement,  like  the  differences  in  text,  between 
the  two  versions,  are  for  the  most  part  the  result  of  errors  on  the  part 
of  one  or  other  translator  or  of  some  copyist.  The  kind  of  error  that  is 
most  common  in  manuscripts  of  the  Chronici  canones  is  for  entries  of  event*, 
while  retaining  their  position  in  relation  to  other  entries  of  events  in 
the  same  column,  to  be  shifted  upwards  or  downwards,  so  as  to  stand  against 

2  Am  ng  the  instances  cited  by  Schone  are  (1900),  i.  ]85. 
the  differences  in  the  dates  of  Roman  bishops,  3  The    Armenian    version     also     omits    the 

on    which    much    has    been    written.       I    am  column  of  Median  kings,  although  this  column 

convinced    that    the    peculiar    dates    of    the  is  essential  both  to  the  chronological  system  of 

Armenian    version    are   simply  due    to    Bcribal  the  work  and  to  the  arrangement  of  columns 

errors,  and  ilo  not  »o  back  to  Eusebius  himself.  and    spaces,    as    preserved    in    Jerome.     The 

See  Mr.  C.    II.   Turner's  article  on   the  Early  omission  of  the  Mycenaean  co'umn  would  not  in 

Episcopal  Lists,  Journal  of  Theol  itself  dislocate  any  of  the  other  columns. 


different  years,  and,  where  there  are  two  columns  of  events,  to  change 
their  position  in  relation  to  entries  of  events  in  the  opposite  column. 
It  is  therefore  important  in  considering  suggested  corrections  of  the  text  to 
observe  how  far  they  involve  alterations  in  the  order  of  entries  occurring 
in  the  same  column  or  space. 

The  thalassocracies  occur  in  two  places  in  the  Chronica,  (1)  in  the 
Chronographia,  represented  by  the  Armenian  version  only,  (2)  in  the 
Chronici  canones,  represented  by  the  Armenian  version,  by  Jerome,  and, 
according  to  Von  Gutschmid,  whom  we  shall  see  reason  for  following,  by 
Syncellus.  There  is  no  reason  for  suspecting  either  translator  of  Eusebius 
of  having  attempted  to  do  anything  else  than  render  the  text  as  he  found 
it.  In  the  case  of  Jerome  the  amanuensis  would,  as  far  as  512  B.C.,  simply 
keep  each  entry  in  the  place  where  he  found  it  in  the  Greek.  Syncellus 
might,  consistently  with  the  principle  of  his  work,  introduce  material  from 
some  other  source,  and  in  two  instances  he  inserts  alternative  figures  which 
may  have  been  obtained  elsewhere,  but  he  does  not  appear  in  the  present 
instance  to  have  adopted  any  date  from  outside  Eusebius.  But  while  there 
appears  to  have  been  no  attempt  to  improve  on  the  figures  given  by 
Eusebius,  it  is,  as  Mr.  Myres  has  pointed  out,  by  no  means  clear  that  the 
dates  for  the  thalassocracies  given  in  the  Chronici  canones  were  calculated 
by  Eusebius  from  the  list  given  by  Diodorus  which  appears  in  the  Chrono- 
graphia. Eusebius  may  have  somewhere  found  the  date  of  each  thalasso- 
cracy  already  correlated  to  the  dates  of  other  events  which  appear  in  the 
Chronici  canones,  and  may  have  placed  his  entries  accordingly.  We  are 
therefore  faced  with  three  possibilities.  We  may  have  in  Eusebius  a  single 
scheme  of  thalassocracies  derived  from  Diodorus,  or  we  may  have  two 
separate  schemes  of  which  one  only  is  derived  from  Diodorus,  or  we  may 
have,  as  Mr.  Myres  supposes,  one  scheme  drawn  from  Diodorus,  and  a  chaos 
of  dates  not  calculated  on  any  fixed  principle. 

Before  examining  the  dates  in  detail  it  may  be  well  to  see  how  far 
Mr.  Myres's  table  accurately  represents  the  evidence  before  us.  Columns 
A,  B,  and  C,  giving  the  order  of  the  thalassocracies  and  the  length  of 
each  as  recorded  in  the  Armenian  version  of  the  Chronographia  are 
correct.  But  in  column  D,  giving  the  figures  preserved  in  Syncellus,  a 
few  errors  may  be  noticed.  Thus  Syncellus  actually  gives  ninety-two  years 
as  the  duration  of  the  Lydian  or  Maeonian  thalassocracy,  agreeing  with  the 
Armenian  version  both  of  the  Chronographia  and  of  the  Canons.  He  makes 
no  mention,  however,  of  the  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  and  thirteenth  thalasso- 
cracies instead  of  merely  omitting  the  figures  as  Mr.  Myres  states.  In 
column  E,  which  gives  the  figures  preserved  in  the  Armenian  Canons,  Mr. 
Myres's  only  mistake  seems  to  be  in  the  case  of  the  Eretrian  thalassocracy, 
where  he  has  substituted  1505,  the  number  standing  opposite  the  record  of 
the  event  in  Schone's  edition,  for  1514,  the  date  pointed  out  by  Schone's 
index  letter.  With  column  F,  as  an  accurate  reproduction  of  Jerome's  figures 
given  in  Sclione,  no  fault  can  be  found,  except  that  the  forty-five  years  as- 
signed to  the  Phoenicians  are  to  be  found  in  one  manuscript  only,  and  are 


rightly  regarded  by  Schone  as  no  part  of  the  genuine  text  of  Jerome.  It 
will,  however,  be  seen  hereafter  that  different  figures  are  sometimes  to  be 
found  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript  from  those  which  appear  in  Schone's 
edition.  In  column  G,  in  which  the  dates  of  the  Armenian  Canons  are  reduced 
to  years  B.C.,  the  only  errors  are  those  which  result  from  the  error  in  column  E. 
Thus  the  Lacedaemonian  and  Naxian  thassalocracies  should  last  eleven  years 
instead  of  two,  and  should  be  dated  502  B.C.,  instead  of  511  B.C.,  while  the 
Eretrian  thalassocracy  should  last  for  seventeen  years  only.  In  column  H,  in 
which  Jerome's  dates  are  reduced  to  years  B.C.,  Mr.  Myres  has  made  three 
small  errors  in  subtraction.  Thus  the  forty-one  years  of  the  Thracians  should 
be  fifty-one,  the  twenty-three  years  of  the  Rhodians  should  be  twenty-two,  and 
the  fifty-two  years  of  the  Phoenicians  should  be  fifty-three.  Here  again  the 
use  of  a  revised  text  of  Jerome  might  necessitate  a  few  slight  modifications. 
In  column  I,  giving  Winckler's  dates,  I  have  discovered  no  error,  while  in 
column  J,  where  Mr.  Myres  gives  his  own  dates,  there  is  one  trifling  error  in 
addition.  Thus  the  date  of  the  Rhodians,  to  whom  twenty-three  years  are 
attributed,  should  be  790  or  780,  not  800  or  790,  and  the  dates  for  the  Lydians, 
Pelasgians,  and  Thracians  should  be  correspondingly  reduced  by  ten  years,  and 
the  interval  allotted  to  the  [Carians]  increased  by  ten  years.  None  of  these 
errors,  except  those  in  columns  D  and  E,  affects  the  documentaiy  evidence, 
but  they  are  all  instructive  as  furnishing  an  example  of  the  kind  of  error 
to  which  we  are  all  liable  in  transferring  figures  from  one  setting  to  another. 
It  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  Myres  has  nowhere  copied  a  figure  incorrectly, 
but  he  has  once  overlooked  a  figure,  once  copied  a  wrong  figure,  and  four 
times  made  a  slight  error  in  calculation.  We  need  not  hesitate  to  attribute 
similar  errors  to  the  ancients. 

The  figures  given  in  the  Armenian  Chronographia  present  little  difficulty. 
All  except  two  are  confirmed  either  by  Syncellus  or  by  the  Armenian 
Canons.  The  two  exceptions  are  the  thirty-three  years  of  the  Cyprians 
and  the  forty-five  years  of  the  Phoenicians.  Forty-five  years  are,  however, 
attributed  to  the  Phoenicians  in  codex  F  of  Jerome,  a  manuscript  which  is 
notoriously  the  result  of  a  deliberate  recension.  As  the  figure  forty-five  does 
not  belong  to  Jerome's  text  and  cannot  be  obtained  by  simple  subtraction,  it 
is  practically  certain  that  it  was  obtained  by  a  reference  to  the  original  Greek. 
This  renders  it  probable  that  F  is  also  following  the  Greek  in  attributing 
thirty-two  years  to  the  Cyprians,  who  are  assigned  thirty-three  years  in  the 
Armenian  Chronographia,  and  twenty-three  years  in  Jerome.  In  the  text  of 
F,  they  are  spread  over  the  period  1150-1181,  and  are  thus  made  to  last 
thirty-one  years.  The  figure  thirty-three  attributed  to  the  Cyprians  is  there- 
fore the  only  doubtful  figure  in  the  list;  but  we  still  have  the  lost  figures  for 
the  Egyptians,  Milesians,  Carians,  Lesbians,  and  Samians  to  make  good  as 
best  we  can.  When  we  consider  the  state  in  which  the  Armenian  Ch 
graphia  has  descended  to  us,  Ave  can  infer  nothing  as  to  the  original  from  the 
absence  of  some  of  the  figures  from  our  existing  manuscripts.  It  is  probable 
that  the  right  margin  of  some  ancestor  of  the  existing  Armenian  manuscripts 
was  torn.     As  the  extant  figures  of  the  Armenian  Chronographia  are  with  the 


one  exception  mentioned  confirmed  by  figures  derived  from  the  Canons,  it  is 
probable  that  the  lost  figures  would  also  agree  with  the  figures  of  the 

Syncellus,  as  being  in  the  Greek  language,  has  a  special  value  for  the 
reconstruction  of  the  lost  Greek  Canons.  That  his  data  are  in  this  case 
derived  from  the  Canons,  not  from  the  Chronographia,  is  clear  from  the  way 
iu  which  they  are  introduced,  interspersed  among  historical  events,  and 
generally  among  those  events  which  stand  close  to  the  notices  of  the 
different  thalassocracies  in  the  Chronici  canones}  Mr.  Myres  urges  that 
Syncellus  must  have  used  the  Chronographia  for  his  figures  for  the  Naxians, 
because,  as  he  thinks,  the  Naxians  were  omitted  from  the  Canons.  But  this 
omission  is  merely  an  inference  from  the  date  assigned  to  the  Eretrians  in 
the  Armenian  Canons,  which  Mr.  Myres  took  as  1505,  but  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  should  be  1514.  The  phraseology  in  which  Eusebius  recorded  the 
various  thalassocracies  differs  widely,  and  a  comparison  of  the  notices  in 
Syncellus  with  those  in  Jerome  will  show  how  closely  Syncellus  followed  the 
text  of  his  authority.  The  following  table  contains  the  text  of  all  notices  of 
thalassocracies,  common  both  to  Syncellus  and  to  Jerome : — 

Syncellus.  Jerome. 

Au5ol  ol  /cot  Maioves  Ijydi  mare  obtinuerunt. 
iQa\a<TaoKp6.TT)<To.v  err?  9/3'. 

TleXaayol  /3'  idaXaaaoKpaT^irav  Pelasgi  mare  obtimierunt. 
€ttj  7re  . 

Tpiroi  idaXa<T(roKpa.T7)<Tav  Tertio  mare  obtimierunt 

&p§nes  (Ti)  o0'.  Thraces  ami  XVIIII. 

0p5/ces  iQaXaaa-oKparow.  Thraces  mare  obtinuerunt 

Tfraproi  iOaXaaaoKparriaai'  Quarto  mare  obtinuerunt 

'PoStoi,  Kara  5e  rivas  ire/j.irToi,  trr]  Ky'.  Rhodii  ami  XXIII. 

4>pvyes  irffxirroi  tda\a<j<joKp6.T7)crav  Quinto  mare  obtinuerunt 

€Tij  Kt',  Kara  8e  rivas  erri  5-'.  Phryges  ami  XXV. 

'EOaKarfiTOKpdr-qaav  Aiyivrjrai  XVII  mare  obtinuerunt  Aegitietae. 

trrj  i'.  aim  XX. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  six  instances  out  of  the  seven  the  two  agree 
in  the  relative  order  of  the  subject  and  the  verb.  The  double  entry  of  the 
Thracian  thalassocraoy,  triple  in  Jerome,  is  particularly  striking,  and  it  is 
significant  that  the  phraseology  of  the  two  entries  varies  in  the  same  way 
in  both  writers.  This  makes  it  clear  that  the  entry  was  already  duplicated 
in  Eusebius.  Such  duplicate  entries  are  common :  the  explanation  probably 
is  that  in  addition  to  the  date  which  he  had  himself  calculated  by  dead- 
reckoning,  Eusebius  found  in  some  source  a  date  already  correlated  to  some 
neighbouring  date  in  his  table.  The  only  figures  peculiar  to  Syncellus  are 
the  obviously  incorrect  twelve  and  seven  attributed  to  the  Lacedaemonians 
and  Eretrians  respectively,  and  the  alternative  figure  six  for  the  Phrygians. 
With  this  last  we  must  compare  the  alternative  ordinal  V  for  the  Rhodians. 

4  From  the  position  of  the  thalassocracies  in  text  of  Eusebius  which  he  had  before  him.  This 
relation  to  neighbouring  events  in  Syncellus,  will  be  found  useful  in  determining  Eusebius' 
we  get  a  vague  indication  of  their  position  in  the       date  for  the  Aeginetans. 


This  may  be  due,  as  Mr.  Myres  suggests,  to  the  inclusion  in  some  lists  of  the 
Cariaus  as  the  first  thalassocrats,  or  it  may  be  explained  by  the  double 
reckoning  of  the  Thracians,  the  immediate  predecessors  of  the  Rhodians. 

We  now  come  to  the  figures  preserved  in  the  two  versions  of  the  Chronici 
canones,  and  are  immediately  confronted  by  the  extensive  omissions  in  the 
notices  presented  to  us.  That  no  such  omissions  existed  in  the  Greek  text 
of  the  Canons  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  each  thalassocracy  is  to  be  found  in 
at  least  one  of  the  three  documents,  Syncellus,  the  Armenian  Canons,  and 
Jerome.  The  omission  of  several  notices  from  the  Armenian  version  need 
occasion  no  surprise,  since,  as  we  have  seen,  omissions  are  very  frequent  in 
that  version.  The  omissions  from  Jerome  do  not  admit  of  such  an  easy 
explanation.  Either  these  notices  could  not  have  stood  in  the  same  column 
with  ordinary  events  in  the  Greek  Eusebius,  or  there  must  have  been  some 
motive  for  passing  them  over  when  copying  the  notices  of  ordinary  events. 
A  probable  explanation  is  afforded  by  the  difference  of  inks  of  which  traces 
are  preserved  in  a  few  extant  manuscripts.  Ordinary  notices  in  Jerome  are 
in  black  ink,  but  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript,  a  fifth  century  manuscript  of  a 
fourth  century  book,  all  the  notices  of  thalassocracies  are  in  red  ink  except 
that  of  the  Lydians,  which  is  in  black,  and  that  of  the  Cyprians,  which  is 
omitted  altogether.  The  Fleury  fragments  (S),  perhaps  also  of  the  fifth 
century,  have  the  notice  of  the  Pelasgi  in  red  ink,  but  the  notice  of  the 
Lydians  and  the  second  and  third  notices  of  the  Thracians  in  black.  Else- 
where they  are  defective.  The  notice  of  the  Pelasgi  is  also  in  red  ink  in  N,  a 
descendant  of  S,  and  there  is  an  erased  entry  in  large  red  letters  at  this  place 
in  the  Valenciennes  manuscript  (A,  seventh  century),  but  there  is  now  no 
notice  at  all  of  the  Pelasgian  thalassocracy  in  that  manuscript.  Finally,  in  the 
London  manuscript  (L,  tenth  century),  in  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  general 
arrangement  of  the  work  has  been  transformed,  the  notice  of  the  Lydian 
thalassocracy  is  in  red  ink,  while  the  notices  of  the  remaining  thalasso- 
cracies are  in  black  ink,  but  the  first  notice  of  the  Thracian,  and  the  notices 
of  the  Rhodian,  Cyprian,  and  Phoenician  thalassocracies,  are  made  to  stretch 
across  the  columns,  whereas  ordinary  events  are  confined  to  a  space  marked 
out  for  them.  We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude  that  all  the  thalassocra- 
cies were  originally  entered  by  Jerome  in  red  ink.  It  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  this  use  of  red  ink  goes  back  to  Eusebius.  Jerome  seems  to  assert 
in  his  preface,5  that  the  alternation  between  red  ami  black  columns  was 
introduced  by  him  to  remedy  a  confusion  that  had  arisen  in  the  Greek 
manuscripts.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  the  distinction  of  colours 
was  altogether  new.  Anyhow,  the  red  ink  in  which  the  notices  of  thalasso- 
cracies were  written 'must  indicate  something  which  distinguished  them  from 
other  entries  in  Eusebius,  and  which  prevented  them  from  being  copied  out 
along  with  the  other  entries.  It  is  possible  that  they  were  entered  by  Eusebius 
in  the  margin,  This  would  explain  their  omission  by  Jerome  even  after 
the  place  where   the   arrangement  of  the   work   is   altered    (511  B.C.;.     The 

5  P.  2,  11.  23  30  (?chone  . 
H  S. — VOL.    XXVII.  G 


theory  that  these  notices  were  inserted  by  Jerome  separately  from  the  other 
entries  will  explain  not  only  the  omission  of  some  thalassocracies,  but  the 
displacement  of  others.  We  shall  see  reason  for  thinking  that  the  Lydian 
thalassocracy  has  been  displaced  not  merely  in  relation  to  the  columns  of 
figures  (the  fila  regnorum),  but  in  relation  to  other  entries  in  the  column  for 
events.  The  Rhodian  thalassocracy  has  been  inserted  in  the  column  which 
Eusebius  usually  reserves  for  sacred  history,  and  the  Aeginetan  thalassocracy 
has  been  inserted  in  the  place  which  ought,  apparently,  to  belong  to  the 
Naxian.  The  use  of  red  ink  or  whatever  feature  in  Eusebius  is  represented  by 
the  red  ink  in  Jerome  was  probably  intended  to  indicate  that  the  thalassocracies 
belonged  to  the  chronological  framework  of  the  book  or  at  least  formed  a 
chronological  system  by  themselves  ;  it  at  all  events  differentiates  them  from 
the  ordinary  isolated  events  that  appear  in  the  two  columns  of  events.  This 
beino-  so,  we  should  expect  the  intervals  between  the  dates  assigned  to  the 
thalassocracies  to  correspond  with  the  recoide  1  durations  of  the  thalasso- 

But  in  the  Armenian  Canons  there  is  not  a  single  instance  where  the 
intervals  given  in  the  text  exactly  agree  with  the  differences  between  the  dates 
either  of  two  consecutive  or  two  more  distant  thalassocracies.  In  the  general 
confusion  of  the  chronology  of  this  version,  such  a  discrepancy  need  not 
alarm  us.  The  case  with  Jerome's  version  is  slightly  different.  The  critical 
apparatus  now  available  for  the  text  of  this  version  is  somewhat  larger  than 
that  possessed  by  Schone.  The  dates  given  in  the  Bodleian  manuscript  for  the 
thalassocracies  differ  from  Scheme's  in  six  instances.  Thus  the  Bodleian 
manuscript  has  1016  for  the  first  notice  and  1054  for  the  third  notice  of  the 
Thracian  thalassocracy,  1100  for  the  Rhodian,  1125  for  the  Phrygian,  1234  for 
the  Egyptian,  and  1347  for  the  Lesbian.  Of  these  figures  all  except  the  first 
are  well  supported  by  other  manuscripts  and  are  certainly  the  true  text 
of  Jerome.  For  the  first  notice  of  the  Thracian  thalassocracy  the  best 
manuscripts  other  than  the  Bodleian  vary  between  1010,  1011,  and  1012. 
The  Bodleian  manuscript  also  omits  the  Cyprian  confederacy,  but  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Schone  is  right  in  inserting  it  and  that  he  has  inserted  it 
against  the  right  date.  The  Bodleian  manuscript  further  assigns  seventeen 
instead  of  eighteen  years  to  the  Milesians,  but  it  meets  with  no  support,  and 
is  certainly  in  error.  If  we  adopt  the  readings  recommended  above,  we 
find  two  instances  in  each  of  which  the  length  of  a  series  of  thalassocracies, 
obtained  by  adding  their  individual  durations,  agrees  with  the  interval 
between  the  dates  assigned  for  the  commencement  and  the  close  of  the 
series.  But  in  order  to  effect  this,  we  must  adopt  the  figure  32,  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  probably  borrowed  by  F  from  the  Greek,  for  the  duration  of 
the  Cyprian  thalassocracy,  and  the  figure  61  assigned  by  the  Armenian  version 
to  the  Carian  thalassocracy,  the  duration  of  which  is  not  specified  by  Jerome. 
Thus  from  the  beginning  of  the  Rhodian  to  the  end  of  the  Cyprian  thalassocracy 
the  number  of  years  should  be  23  +  25  +  32  =  80  =  1180-1100,  and  from  the 
beginning  of  the  Milesian  to  the  end  of  the  Carian  thalassocracy  the  number 
should  be  18  +  61  =  70  =  1347  - 1268.     There  is  therefore  reason  for  regarding 


1100,  1180,  12GS,  1347,  as  not  merely  Jerome's  dates,  but  Eusebius's,  on  the 
assumption  that  in  Eusebius  the  intervals  between  the  dates  agreed  with  the 
specified  durations  in  each  case.  It  is  now  possible  with  the  assistance  of  the 
figures  already  verified  by  the  agreement  of  the  Armenian  Chronographia 
with  Syncellus  to  reconstruct  the  earlier  part  of  the  chronological  scheme  of 
Eusebius  as  follows  : — 


i>;ue  in  years 
of  Abraham 

Date  B  • 

].  Lydi. 




II.   Pelasgi. 




III.  Thraces. 




IV.  Rhodii. 




V.   Phryges. 




VI.  Cyprii. 




VII.  Phoenices, 




VIII.  Aegy[.tii. 




IX.   Milesii. 




X.   < 




XI.  Lesbii. 




It  will  be  observed  that  while  the  dates  given  in  Jerome  and  the 
Armenian  do  not  agree  in  a  single  instance,  the  dates  given  above,  which 
have  been  made  to  agree  with  Jerome  in  four  instances  out  of  seven,  also 
agree  with  the  Armenian  in  one  instance  out  of  five.  Furthermore,  except 
in  the  case  of  Jerome's  date  for  the  Pelasgi,  this  table  nowhere  implies 
that  an  event  should  have  been  shifted  by  more  than  ten  years  either 
in  the  Armenian  or  in  Jerome's  version  from  the  date  supposed  to  have 
been  assigned  by  Eusebius,  and  in  the  majority  of  cases  the  implied 
shifting  is  very  slight.  Jerome  in  his  preface  seems  to  suggest  that  some 
such  confusion  had  already  arisen  in  copies  of  the  Canons,  and,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  is  an  exceedingly  common  error  so  long  as  it  does  not  affect 
the  order  of  notices  in  a  column.  That  a  shifting  of  two  years  has  taken 
place  at  the  beginning  of  the  series  is  manifest.  Immediately  after  the 
notice  of  the  Lydian  thalassocracy,  against  the  same  date  842,  we  read  '  Mycenis 
post  necem  Aegisti  Orestes  reguavit  ami.  XV..'  while  seventeen  years  later, 
against  859,°  we  read  '  Mycenis  regnavit  Tisamenus  films  Orestis.'  It  follows 
therefore  that  either  the  accession  of  Tisamenus  has  been  shifted  downwards 
oi  the  accession  of  Orestes,  and  with  it  the  Lydian  thalassocracy,  has  been 
shifted  upwards. 

The  Pelasgic  thalassocracy  stands  in  the  Armenian  Can  ms  next  before  the 
Peloponnesian  invasion  of  Attica,  which  is  followed  by  a  notice  of  the  Amazon 
invasion  of  Asia;  in  Jerome  it  comes  much  later.  Now  there  are  two 
notices  of  Peloponnesian  invasions  of  Attica  about  this  place  in  Jerome. 
but  the  one  that  stands  against  the  year  937  is  the  one  that  is 
followed  by  the  notice  of  the  Amazons.  If  then  the  Armenian  version  has 
retained  the  original  order  of  these  notices,  Eusebius  must  have  placed  the 
Pelasgic  thalassocracy  in  or  shortly  before  937,  a  date  which  agrees  well  with  the 

■:  So  the  Bodleian  manuscript.     The  Flcary  fragments  hav<   : 

,;   2 


one  suggested  in  the  table  above.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  change  in 
the  order  of  events  which  must  here  have  taken  place  in  Jerome  is  highly 
improbable  except  on  the  theory  here  advanced  that  the  thalassocracies  were 
added  after  the  other  events  had  been  recorded  in  their  proper  places. 

The  erroneous  date  for  the  Thracians  in  Jerome  may  be  explained  on  t he- 
supposition  that  his  scribe  entered  the  event  against  the  figure  XVIII  or 
XXTII  instead  of  XXVIII  in  the  column  of  Lacedaemonian  kin^s,  an  easv 
mistake  in  a  confessedly  hasty  work.7  The  second  and  third  dates  for  the 
Thracians.  to  which  no  numerals  are  attached,  obviously  do  not  belong  to  the 
series  of  dates  under  discussion.  The  date  1125,  which  is  only  two  years 
in  error,  needs  no  explanation.  Schone's  date  1123.  derived  from  the 
worthless  Bern  manuscript,  is  only  right  by  accident.  The  date  11-32 
would  seem  to  have  been  shifted  a  little  further  than  usual,  but  it  should 
be  observed  that  F  has  1150,  and  that  there  is  a  very  long  notice  under 
the  year  1112  in  Jerome,  which  may  have  made  it  difficult  for  some  of 
his  copyists  to  begin  a  new  notice  under  1148.  1231  instead  of  1225 
for  the  Egyptians  may  be  the  9th  year  of  Psammis  instead  of  the  9th 
year  of  Osorthon  :  such  a  change  could  be  made  the  more  easily  if  the 
notice  originally  stood  in  the  margin,  against  the  Egyptian  column.  It 
is  interesting  to  observe  that  Scheme  quotes  ABFP  in  favour  of  this  passage 
standing  in  the  margin  in  Jerome's  version  instead  of  in  the  column  for 
events.  The  substitution  of  1206  for  1286  admits  of  an  equally  simple 
explanation.  Jerome  has  erroneously  entered  the  death  of  Bocchoris  at  the 
hands  of  Sabacon  against  the  first  year  of  Sebichos  (1291)  instead  of  against 
the  first  year  of  Sabacon  (1282).  The  Carian  thalassocracy,  which  is  the  next 
entry,  appears  to  have  been  shifted  along  with  the  death  of  Bocchoris.  Thus 
it  retains  its  proper  place  in  relation  to  other  entries  in  the  same  column,  but 
is  dated  ten  years  too  late.  That  both  errors  were  made  by  Jerome,  not 
Eusebius,  is  proved  by  a  reference  to  the  Armenian  version,  where  both 
entries  appear  in' their  proper  place. 

So  far  then  as  each  successive  thalassocracy  is  noted  in  Jerome's  Canons, 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  restoring  the  text  of  Eusebius  and  explaining 
the  errors  that  have  crept  into  it.  The  remainder  of  the  series  can  best 
be  restored  by  beginning  at  the  end  and  working  backwards.  It  is  clear 
from  the  words  in  which  the  last  thalassocracy  (that  of  the  Aeginetans) 
is  entered  in  the  Canons,  closing  with  '  usque  ad  transitum  Xerxis,'  that  the 
list  was  meant  to  end  with  the  expedition  of  Xerxes.  This  last  thalassocracy 
lasted  ten  years,  as  is  proved  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  Armenian 
Chronographia,  the  Armenian  Canons,  and  Syncellus,  and  it  therefore 
follows  that  Jerome's  version  is  seriously  in  error  in  making  it  begin  in 
1508  (508  B.C.).     The  date  given  in  the  Armenian  Canons,  1531  (  =  185  B.C.). 

:actly  ten  years  before  the  date  of  Plataea  and  Mycale  as  preserved 
in  Jerome,  though  only  five  years  before  the  date  assigned  to  the  destruction 
of  Athens.     It  is  therefore  consistent  with  the  principles   on  which  Eusebius 

7  'Tumultuarium  opus.'     P.  1.  1.  14  (Scl. 


arranged  his  chronology,  and,  as  we  shall  -  se  presently,  it  is  confirmed  by 
other  figures.  In  Syncellus  the  notice  of  this  thalassocracy  immediai 
follows  a  notice  of  Gelon,  which  is  placed  in  Jerom<'  againsl  the  year  1530, 
a  piece  of  evidence  of  little  importance  in  itself,  but  valuable  as  confirming 
the  Armenian  <'<m>iis.  Taking  this  date  as  a  starting  point,  ami  working 
with  the  figures  of  the  Armenian  Chronographia,  which  we  have  found  to  be 
confirmed  by  figures  derived  from  the  Canons,  we  obtain  the  following 
series : — 


"f  Abraham 

X  1  V. 




















This  gives  us  tor  the  Lacedaemonians  a  date  differing  by  one  year 
•only,  and  for  the  Eretrians  a  date  differing  by  two  years  only,  from  those 
of  the  Armenian  Canons.  As  we  have  already  seen,  small  errors  like  these 
are  the  almost   necessary  result  of  the    method   in   which   tin  s    are 

constructed.  It  is  also  important  to  observe  that  the  date  thus  obtained 
for  the  Naxians  differs  by  two  years  only  from  Jerome's  date  for  the  Aeginetan<. 
This  renders  it  probable  that  Jerome  or  his  amanuensis,  after  taking  his 
eye  off  his  Greek  original,  while  red  ink  was  being  substituted  for  black. 
allowed  it  to  be  caught  by  an  entry  similar  to  the  one  which  he  wished 
to  insert,  and  so  the  Aeginetan  thalassocracy  was  entered  where  the  Naxian 
thalassocracy  should  have  been.  It  is  also  possible  that  the  entry  may 
have  been  made  either  in  Jerome  or  in  the  Greek  manuscript  used  by  him 
under  1508  instead  of  1506,  because  a  long  entry  under  1505  occupied 
the  whole  space  belonging  to  the  years  1505,  1506,  and  1507. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  with  certainty  the  dates  assigned  by  Eusebius 
to  the  Phocaean  and  Samian  thalassocracies.  The  dates  1441  and  1486  in 
the  Armenian  Canons  agree  so  well  with  the  41  years'  duration  of  the 
Phocaean  thalassocracy  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  they  contain  any 
serious  error.  The  date  1441  receives  confirmation  as  an  approximate  date 
from  Syncellus,  who  mentions  the  Phocaean  thalassocracy  immediately  after 
the  seven  wise  men  (1438  in  Jerome)  and  immediately  before  the  Nemean 
games  (1444  in  Jerome).  We  are  therefore  compelled  to  abandon  Jerome's 
€8  years  for  the  Lesbians,  while  the  '.Hi  years  of  a  single  Armenian  manuscript 
are,  as  Mr.  Myres  observes,  calculated  from  the  dates  assigned  bo  the 
thalassocracies  in  the  Armenian  version,  and  arc  therefore  ofn  i  value  for  the 
text  of  Eusebius.  At  the  same  time  we  have  no  evidence  for  the  duration 
•of  the  Samian  thalassocracy  apart  from  the  date  assigned  to  it  in  the 
Armenian  Canons.  Accordingly,  the  dates  1441  and  I486  cannot  be  checked 
by  means  either  of  earlier  or  of  later  dates  in  the  series,  an  1  as  the  Armenian 
Canons  cannot  be  trusted  for  an  exact  year,  both  dates  may  contain 
a  slight  error.  In  any  case,  one  of  the  two  must  be  wrong,  since,  a-  they 
stand,  they  would  give  a  duration  of  45  instead  of  44  yens  for  the  Phocaean 


thalassocracies.  The  Samian  thalassocracy  is  certainly  connected  with  the 
tyranny  of  Polycrates,  which  Jerome  dates  14S4,S  but,  as  Mr.  Myres  observes, 
this  date  was  probably  taken  by  Eusebius  from  some  source  other  than  his 
list  of  thalassocracies.  It  is  also  interesting  to  observe  that  the  notice  of  the 
Samian  thalassocracy  appears  in  the  Armeuian  Canons  between  that  of 
Pythagoras  (1487  in  Jerome)  and  that  of  Hipparchus  (1489  in  Jerome).  By 
combining  these  last  two  dates  with  those  quoted  above  from  Syncellus  for 
the  Phocaean  thalassocracy,  we  get  1443  and  1487  or  1444  and  1488  as  the 
dates  of  the  Phocaean  and  Samian  thalassocracies,  of  which  the  former  pair 
most  closely  approximate  to  the  dates  given  in  the  Armenian  Canons ;  but 
the  calculation  is  rather  precarious,  and  we  must  be  content  to  leave 
the  exact  dates  assigned  by  Eusebius  to  these  thalassocracies  an  open 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  complete  our  table  of  thalassocracies. 
leaving  the  exact  duration  doubtful  in  two  instances.  The  complete  list  will 
be  as  follows  : — 


uaie  in  years 
of  Abraham 

Date  B.C. 





















































96  (?) 






1443  (?) 

573  (?) 




1487  (?) 

529  (?) 






















It  is  i  in)  mil  ant  to  notice  that  the  series  thus  obtained  is  calculated 
entirely  from  figures  derived  ultimately  from  the  Canons,  the  Chronogrdpkia 
having  been  used  for  corroboration  only  ;  but  as  the  series  accords  almost 
exactly  with  the  extant  figures  of  the  Chronographia,  it  is  probable  that 
it  correctly  supplies  the  figures  missing  from  the  surviving  manuscripts. 
If  we  wisli  to  go  behind  FAisebius  to  his  authorities,  we  must  set  aside 
tin-  dates  given  above  and  concentrate  our  attention  on  the  durations,  and 
we  must  remember  thai  the  scries  ought  to  end,  not  in  475  B.C.,  but  in 
480  B.C.,  the  true  date  of  the  expedition  of  Xerxes.  It  ought  in  consequence 
to  extend  back  to    1177    j:.c,   only   four  years  after   the    date  assigned    by 

So  the  Bodleian  and  Berlin  manuscripts  |M<>  . 


Eusebius  to  the  fall  of  Troy;  and  one  is  tempted  to  suppose  that  the 
compiler  gave  some  explanation  of  the  three  intervening  year3,  so  as  to 
bring  Ins  List  back  to  the  fall  of  Troy  itself,  and  to  complete  a  total  of 
700  years. 

It  will  be  observed  that  from  the  Phocaeans  onwards  the  duration  of 
each  thalassocracy,  according  to  the  figures  given  in  the  table  above, 
corresponds  with  its  duration  as  obtained  by  Mr.  Myres.  Nor  is  it  possible. 
to  dispute  the  historical  facts  with  which  Mr.  Myres  connects  each  of  these 
thalassocracies.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  there  is  a  tendency  for  a  thalasso- 
cracy  to  end  in  some  disaster  to  the  power  that  held  it.  Thus  the  Phocaean 
thalassocracy  ends  in  the  capture  of  Phocaea  by  the  Persians  in  534  B.C., 
the  Samian  thalassocracy  with  the  death  of  Polycrates  in  or  about  517  B.C., 
and  the  Eretrian  thalassocracy  with  the  fall  of  Eretria  in  490  B.C.  The 
Lesbian  period  should  cover  the  years  674-578  B.C.,  the  period  in  which  the 
ancients  were  accustomed  to  place  the  glorious  names  belonging  to  Lesbos, 
including  Lesches  at  the  beginning,  followed  by  Terpan  ler,  Arion,  Pittacus, 
Sappho,  and  Alcaeus.  It  is  not  easy  to  explain  a  Carian  sea-power  in 
735-(>74  B.C.,  but  it  may  be  connected  with  the  Carian  mercenaries  in  the 
service  of  Psammetichus.  There  is,'  however,  no  difficulty  in  explaining  a 
Milesian  thalassocracy  in  753-735  B.C.  It  is  the  age  of  colonization.  The 
beginning  of  the  thalassocracy  is  connected  in  Eusebius  with  the  foundation 
of  Naucratis,  and  is  immediately  followed  by  a  notice  of  Thales.  The  notice 
of  the  foundation  of  Trapezus  9  in  755  B.C.  probably  belongs  to  the  same 
system  of  chronology,  with  the  accuracy  of  which  we  are  not  concerned.  It 
is  important  to  note  that  the  foundation  of  Naucratis  in  Egypt  is  the  starting- 
point  of  this  thalassocracy.  The  compiler  seems  to  have  regarded  this  event 
as  a  symptom  of  the  downfall  of  Egyptian  sea-power  and  the  establishment  of 
a  Milesian  power  in  its  place,  and  it  is  significant  to  observe  that  the 
Milesians  are  in  the  list  preceded  by  the  Egyptians.  We  have  thus  three 
successive  thalassocracies,  the  Egyptian,  the  Milesian,  and  the  Carian, 
assumed  from  evidence  (more  or  less  slight)  of  power  in  the  Egyptian 

The  importance  of  the  Egyptian  thalassocracy  seems  to  lie  mainly  in  its 
downfall.  The  period  assigned  to  it,  796-75:}  B.C.,  is  not  marked  by  any 
events  in  Egyptian  history,  famous  among  the  Creeks,  except  perhaps  the 
reign  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules  (799-792  B.C.  in  Eusebius)  and  the  reign  of 
Bocchoris,  who  seems  to  have  enjoyed  a  celebrity  .piite  out  of  relation  to  his 
real  importance,  and  whom  Eusebius  dates  779-735  B.C.  It  is  interesting  to 
observe  that  the  4:>  years  which  Eusebius  assigned  to  this  thalassocracy, 
according  to  the  text  as  restored  in  this  article,  correspond  closely  with  the 
44-  years  which  he  attributes  to  Bocchoris.  On  the  other  hand,  the  date- 
both  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules  and  of  Bocchoris  profess  to  be  based  on 
Manetho,  whose  system  of  chronology  dors  not  seem  to  have  come  into 
general   use  till  after  the  time  of  Diodorus.  from   whom   the   list  o\'  thalas- 

the  Armenian  version  and  Synccllus.     Jerome  has  '<  ■ 


socracies  is  derived.  It  may  therefore  be  necessary  to  set  aside  these 
synchronisms  as  mere  coincidences. 

With  the  Phoenician  thalassocracy  we  appear  to  be  once  more  upon  safe 
ground.  The  period  841-79G  B.C.  contains  the  dates  assigned  to  the 
foundation  of  Carthage  by  Trogus  Pompeius,  Velleius  Paterculus,  Timaeus, 
ami  Servius.10  It  ought  also  to  include  the  date  cited  by  Josephus11  from 
Tyrian  sources.  He  gives  a  detailed  scheme  of  Phoenician  chronology  from 
Hiram  to  Pygmalion,  and  a  total  of  143  years  and  8  months  for  the  period 
from  the  building  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  to  the  foundation  of  Carthage. 
According  to  the  received  chronology,  Solomon's  temple  was  begun  in  1012 
and  completed  in  1005  B.C.,  but  it  is  clear  from  Assyrian  references  to  Ahab 
and  Jehu  that  these  dates  are  43  years  too  high.  This  would  reduce  the 
Tyrian  date  of  the  foundation  of  Carthage  to  1012  or  1005-43-143  =  826  or 
819  B.C.  The  period  in  which  the  most  famous  event  of  Phoenician 
maritime  history  falls  was  naturally  made  a  period  of  Phoenician  thalas- 
socracy.  But  before  the  Phoenician  period  all  is  darkness.  The  only 
tangible  event  that  it  seems  possible  to  connect  with  any  of  the  earlier 
sea-powers  is  the  Thracian  conquest  of  Bebrycia  or  Bithynia,  which 
Eusebius  places  in  972  B.C.,  and  which  therefore  falls  within  the  Thracian 
thalassocracy.  It  is  at  all  events  clear  that  the  list  as  Eusebius  found  it  was 
correlated  to  the  general  chronological  tradition  which  he  follows,  and  the 
presumption  is  that  the  list  was  arranged  to  conform  to  some  of  the  better 
known  dates  in  this  tradition  and  that  other  dates  were  made  to  conform  to 
the  list. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  when  the  list  was  drawn  up.  Mr.  Myres's  arguments 
for  a  fifth  century  date  are  far  from  convincing  ;  our  list  bears  little  resemblance 
to  any  scheme  presupposed  in  the  narrative  of  Thucydides.1'2  His  sketch 
of  nautical  history  includes  western  as  well  as  eastern  sea-power,  and  where  it 
gives  dates  they  do  not  tally  with  those  of  our  list.  He  begins  with  a 
Corinthian  sea-power,  and  mentions  the  building  of  triremes  for  the  Samians 
by  a  Corinthian  ship-builder  at  a  date  (704  B.C.)  which  the  list  places  in  the 
Carian  period.  The  Corinthian  sea-power  would  seem,  according  to  his 
narrative,  to  have  been  continuous.  It  is  true  that  he  knows  of  Ionian  sea- 
power  '  later  '  than  the  Corinthian  in  the  time  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses,  thus 
tacitly  denying  a  Milesian  sea-power  in  the  eighth  century  B.C.  Of  the  two 
Ionian  states  that  he  mentions,  the  Samians  are  indeed  connected  both  by 
Thucydides  and  by  the  extant  list  with  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  but  the  only 
event  that  he  connects  with  the  Phocaeans  by  name,  the  founding  of  Massalia, 
falls  outside  the  period  of  their  sea-power  as  given  in  the  list.  It  is  possible 
that  the  survey  of  sea-power  in  Thucydides  may  have  suggested  the  idea  of 
framing  a  list  of  thalassocracies.  In  that  case  the  present  list,  which  is  not 
made  to  conform  to  Thucydides,  is  not  the  earliest.  But  it  seems  vain  to 
pursue  the  inquiry  further.     This  article  will  have  served  its  purpose  if  its 

10    See    the   table   in    Smith,    Dictionary   of  »  <•.  Ap.  i.  17,  18. 

■Greek  ami  Hi,, mm  Geography,  i.  531.  <-  j.  13. 


attempt  to  determine  the  figures  in  the  list  which  Eusebius  derived  from 
Diodorus  is  successful.  I  do  not  regard  the  list  as  of  any  great  historical 
value.  There  may  be  something  behind  it  which  has  not  yet  been  discovered  ; 
but  inquiries  into  its  value  are  bound  to  be  fruitless,  unless  the  restoration  of 
the  list  is  regarded  as  a  problem  of  textual  criticism,  independent  of  historical 


[Plate  IV.] 

The  Plate  which  illustrates  this  article  represents  a  series  of  silver 
coins,  Nos.  1-8,  which  bear  a  strong  family  likeness.  They  are  all  tetra- 
drachms  of  the  Euboic  standard,  and  each  displays  on  the  obverse  a  peculiar 
bunch  of  grapes  which  would  have  excited  even  the  infantine  ridicule  of  the 
humblest  painter  of  Dutch  fruit-pieces.  Two  of  these  coins,  PI.  IV.  2  and  8, 
both  recent  acquisitions  of  the  British  Museum,  are  unpublished,  and  present 
new  types.     Nos.  9-1 1  are  bronze  coins  of  Peparethus. 

In  type  and  style  the  most  remarkable  of  these  coins  is  PI.  IV.  1  = 
Fig.  A.  This  piece  was  found  in  the  island  of  Cos,  but  Mr.  Bar-clay  Head, 
who  first  made  it  known  in  1891,1  attributed  it  in  a  very  ingenious  and  learned 
paper  to  Cyrene.  This  attribution  carried  with  it  the  assignment  to  Cyrene  of 
the  types  here  figured  as  PI.  IV.  8  (and  5),  4  (and  6),  because  all  three 
types  were  found  to  be  united  together  by  a  concatenation  of  dies.  In  a 
paper  printed  in  the  Numismatic  Chronicle,2  shortly  after  Mr.  Head's,  I  ven- 
tured to  point  out — without  suggesting  any  better  attribution — that  the  great 
difficulty  in  this  classification  was  that  all  the  known  coins  of  the  African 
city  bore  as  their  type  the  silphium-plant,  or,  at  least,  a  leaf  or  seed 
representative  of  that  plant :  it  seemed  difficult  to  fit  into  the  Cyrenian 
currency  a  bunch  of  grapes,  a  winged  figure,  a  helmet  and  a  head  of 
Herakles.  A  distinguished  numismatist,  M.  Waddington,  to  whom  at  the 
time,  I  mentioned  the  proposed  attribution,  told  me  that  he  thought,  in 
spite  of  Mr.  Head's  excellent  article,  these  grape-coins  would  turn  out  to  be 
Euboean  or  Macedonian. 

Writing  in  this  Journal  in  1897  Mr.  Hill  suggested  the  Macedonian 
(  li.ilcidice  as  the  probable  home  of  the  coins.  About  1904,  a  specimen  with 
the  helmet  reverse  was  procured  by  its  owner  near  Salonica.  Subsequently 
Mr.  A.  J.  B.  Wace  obtained  in  Scopelos,  i.e.  the  ancient  Peparethus,  the 
island  lying  beyond  the  coast  of  Thessalian  Magnesia,  specimens  of  the 
helmet  and  Herakles  reverses;  and  in  1900  another  specimen  of  the 
Herakles  was  shown  at  the  British  Museum  by  its  owner,  who  stated  that 
it  was  found  in  the  same  island. 

1  Num.  Chron.  1801,  p.  1.  -  1892,  p.  20. 

J.  H.  S.  VOL.  XXVII  (1907)  PL.  IV. 



1,  /r 




Finally,  in  L906,  the  British  Museum  acquired  the  coin  PI.  IV.  2  = 
Fig.  C.  This  coin  bears  the  letters  PE  already  seen  on  the  bronze  coins  of 
Peparethus,  displays  like  them  Dionysiac  types,  and  was  found  in  Scopelos. 
Irs  attribution  to  Peparethus  is,  thus,  hardly  open  to  doubt,  and  the  coin  has 
numismatic  importance  as  showing  that  this  island  coined  silver,  as  well  as 
bronze  money,and  that  its  coinage  began  somewhat  early  in  the  fifth  century. 

Unfortunately  this  inscribed  coin  cannoi  be  held  to  pn  ve  that  the  grape- 
coins  previously  referred  to  belong  to  Peparethus,  for  the  bunch  of  grapes  on 
its  obverse  is  not  identical  with  the  bunches  on  the  other  coins.  It  seems,. 
however,  to  strengthen  their  attribution  to  this  island,  an  attribution  first 
suggested  by  the  provenance  of  some  of  the  specimens.  In  this  paper  I  shall 
therefore  venture  to  adopt  as  a  probable  hypothesis  the  Peparethian  origin  of 
all  the  grape-coins,  except,  perhaps,  in  the  case  of  the  coin  PL  IV.  8. 

The  island  which  chose  the  bunch  of  grapes  as  its  principal  badge, 
though  less  famous  than  Naxos  or  Th era,  was  in  legend  declared  to  have  been 
colonized  by  Cretans  under  an  appropriately  named  leader,  Staphylos,  the 
son  of  Dionysos  and  Ariadne.  Dionysos  was  its  principal  divinity,  and 
Staphylos  is  still  the  name  of  a  bay  of  the  island.4  It  is  first  mentioned  in 
the  Homeric  Hymn  to  Apollo.  In  antiquity  it  was  well  wooded;  it  grew 
corn  and  olives  and  exported  a  well-known  wine.5  At  the  present  day  it 
sends  a  light,  red  wine  of  its  production  to  Constantinople  and  the  Black 
Sea  ports.  There  were  three  towns  in  the  island,  namely,  Peparethus,  the 
most  important  place,  now  called,  like  the  whole  island,  Scopelos;  Selinus, 
and  a   harbour-town,  Panormus. 

Coming  now  to  the  more  precise  attribution  of  our  coins,  it  is  probably 
not  rash  to  assume  that  the  chief  minting-place  was  the  town  Peparethus. 
We  may  assign  to  it  the  inscribed  coin  with  the  seated  Dionysos,  No.  V.6 
(PI.  IV.  2)  and  the  bronze  coins,  PJ.  IV.  9—11.  One  would  suppose  also  that 
the  coin,  PI.  IV.  1,  with  a  fine  figure-subject  (Fig.  A)  was  likewise  issued  from 
the  same  mint.  But  to  what  mint  are  we  to  assign  the  Herakles-head,  the 
helmet  and  the  ivy-wreath,  each  of  which  has  a  bunch  of  grapes  as  its 
obverse  ?  There  seems  some  difficulty  in  assigning  so  many  reverse-types  to 
the  same  town  during  a  period  (apparently)  of  about  forty  or  fifty  years;  aud 

Peparethus    is    no1     the    only    provenance  4  On    Peparethus,    see   Bursian,    Geographic 

recorded    for   these    ruins.     They    have    been  oon  Grieehenland,  ii.  pp.  386  f.  :  C.  Fredrich, 

found  in  Cos,  in  Macedonia  (Salonica),  and  in  'Skiathos  und   Peparethos'  in  ifiltheil.  arch. 

Thessaly.     Cos  may  safely  be  ruled  oul   ns  the  Inst.  (Athens)  x\\i.     1906)  p.  99  f.  and  refer- 

mint-place  of  these  coins,  for  they  in   noway  enees  there;  cp.  "Wace,   lb.  p.  129  f.  •Skiathos 

amalgamate  with  the  already  well-known  series  und  Skopelos ' ;  Murray's   ' 

of  Coan  money.     Some  coast-town  ofThessaly,  pp.  931  f. 

or,   better,    of   Macedonia    would    have   a    fair  3  On  the  wine.  Demosth.  In  La 

claim    to    the    coins,     if    the    attribution    to  Soph.  Philoct.  548  ;  Heracl.  Pont   Fragm.    13  ; 

Peparethus     is     unacceptable.      The     helmet-  Athen.   i.   p.   -J0  a  and   f;    Pliny,    //.  .V.    xiv. 

reverse    is     rather    distinctively     Mar, ■.Ionian  7.  76. 

and    the   winged    figure    (Fig.    A)    lias    been  ,;  The  Roman  numerals  refer  t<>  the  des^rip- 

compared   (by    Mr.    Hill,  J.ff.S.   1897,  p.   7'."  tive  list  of  the  coins  given  at -the  end  of  this 

with  the  winged   figure  with    a    wreath    on    a  ait: 
Macedonian  |   |  coin. 


I  at  first  thought  that  the  Herakles  and  helmet  types — specimens  of  which 
were  ascertained  by  Mr.  Wace  to  have  been  found  on  the  site  of  Selinus — 
might  be  attributed  to  that  town.  This  provenance,  however,  in  a  small 
island,  is  not  decisive  as  to  origin,  and  bearing  in  mind  the  way  in  which 
this  series  of  coins  is  linked  together  by  the  interchange  of  dies,  I  think  the 
safest  course  is  to  suppose  that  they  were  all  struck  at  a  single  mint-place, 
namely  the  town  Peparethus. 

The  only  exception  may  be  the  coin  No.  VI.  (PI.  IV.  8).  It  has  a 
specially  marine  character.  On  the  obverse,  four  dolphins  are  added  to  the 
simple  bunch  of  grapes,  and  the  reverse  is  a  dolphin-rider.  These  types 
might  suit  the  harbour-town  Panormus.  but,  on  the  other  hand,  this  coin — at 
present  unique — is  stated  to  have  been  found  in  Thessaly,  at  Demetrias,  near 
Volo,  and  the  addition  of  the  dolphins  to  the  bunch  of  grapes,  which  seems 
to  be  the  badge  of  Peparethus,  rather  suggests  that  the  coin  does  not  belong 
to  this  island  but  to  an  adjacent  island  or,  perhaps,  to  some  coast-town  of 
Magnesia,  where  Dionysiac  types  are  already  known  from  the  coins. 

Date  and  types. — I  have  already  mentioned  that  several  coins  in  our 
series  show  a  curious  concatenation  of  dies.  The  importance  of  systematically 
studying  the  identities  of  dies  has  lately  become  more  "widely  recognized  : 
Dr.  Regling,  for  instance,  in  his  recent  admirable  monograph  on  the  coinage 
of  Terina  has  carefully  noted  the  relationship  of  the  various  dies,  and  gained 
thereby  good  clues  to  the  exact  chronological  sequence  of  the  coins.  In  the 
present  case,  it  will  be  found  that  the  die  for  the  grapes-obverse  of  the 
winged  figure  coin  (No.  I.)  has  been  used  for  the  obverse  of  a  Herakles  coin 
(No.  II.  A).  Again,  the  grapes-die  found  in  conjunction  with  the  Herakles 
coin,  II.  D  is  used  as  the  obverse  of  III.  (the  helmet  type),  and  also  for  the 
obverse  of  IV.  (the  ivy-wreath  type).  The  relation  of  the  dies  may  be  set 
forth  as  follows,  identical  letters  indicating  identical  dies: — 

No.     I.       (Winged  figure)  Obv.  a,  Rev.  a. 

II.  A.  (Herakles)              ,,      a,  „     B. 

„      II.  D.  (Herakles)             „     j3,  „     b. 

„    III.        (Helmet)                „     /?,  „     C. 

..      IV.          Ivy- wreath)          „     /3,  „      D. 

Tliis  examination  of  the  dies  suggests  that  Nos.  I.  and  II.  A  are  nearly  of 
the  same  date.  In  the  Herakles-series,  II.  D  is  later  (but  not  much  later) 
than  II.  A.  The  helmet-type  III.  and  the  ivy-wreath  type  IV.  are  both 
contemporary,  or  nearly  contemporary,  with  the  Herakles-type  II.  D. 

No.  V.  seated  Dionysosj  and  No.  VI.  (dolphin-rider)  do  not  share  in 
this  interchange  of  dies. 

No.  I.  (PI.  IV.  1  =  Fig.  A).  Mr.  Hill  has  well  suggested  7  the  name  of 
Agon — a  male  personification  corresponding  to  Nike — for  the  reverse  type. 
This   little  running    figure    is    executed   with    all    the    minuteness    of   gem- 

■  J.H.S.  1897,  p    80. 


engraving,  but  is  full  of  elastic  vigour.  In  some  respects  it  recalls  the 
Poseidon  of  the  coins  of  Poseidonia8  and  has  some  affinities  with  the  Nike  of 
of  Elis9  and  the  running  Nike  of  Cyzicus.10  All  these  are  early  coins,  and  I 
think  our  Agon  can  hardly  be  later  than  circ.  B.C.  500-490.  The  type  is, 
apparently,  not  Dionysiac,  and  it  is  hard  to  suggest  the  reason  of  its  choice. 

No.  II.  (PI.  IV.  o  and  5 ;  Fig.  B).  The  Herakles  head  has  an  aspect 
unusual  on  coins.  It  is  delicately  treated  but  has  the  bulging  eyes  and 
simpering  smile  found  in  representations  of  Herakles  on  early  vases  and  other 
monuments.  It  may  be  compared  in  style  with  the  Dionysos  head  on  an 
archaic  coin  of  Sicilian  Naxos.11  This  type  (in  its  earliest  manifestation, 
PI.  IV.  3)  must  be  placed  soon  after  the  Agon  coin  (No.  I.),  of  which  it  has 
borrowed  the  obverse-die.  Perhaps  the  date  is  circ.  B.C.  490.  The  variety  of 
this  coin  (PI.  IV.  5),  where  the  obverse-die  is  changed  so  as  to  present  three 
bunches  of  grapes,  must  be  somewhat  later,  B.C.  490-485  (?). 

No.  III.  (PI.  IV.  4  and  6)  introduces  a  new  reverse — the  helmet,  but 
the  obverse  die  is  borrowed  from  No.  II.  D  (Herakles).  We  may  date  it, 
approximately,  B.C.  485-480.  The  significance  of  the  helmet  is  not  obvious: 
it  is  a  type  that  is  chiefly  familiar  on  Macedonian  coins. V1 

No.  IV.  (PI.  IV.  7).  The  reverse  does  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  find  a 
parallel  in  any  other  coin-type.  We  might  be  content  to  explain  it  as  a 
mere  Dionysiac  emblem,  but  it  may  perhaps  be  preferably  described  as  a 
votive  wreath.  We  know  from  Athenaeus 13  that  the  Peparethians  dedicated 
at  Delphi  a  golden  ivy-wreath — arefyavov  y^pverovv  kittov  UeTrapyOicov.  The 
date  of  this  dedication  is  not  known:  in  the  same  sentence  some  other 
Delphian  dedications  are  recorded  including  a  laurel-wreath  of  the  Ephesians 
and  four  golden  aTXeyytSia  offered  by  the  people  of  Sybaris.  If  we  could 
assume  that  all  these  anathemata  were  made  on  the  same  occasion,  the  date 
of  the  offering  could  be  approximately  fixed  as  not  later  than  B.C.  510,  the 
date  of  the  destruction  of  Sybaris.  This  ivy-leaf  reverse  is  joined  with  an 
obverse-die  borrowed  from  the  helmet-coin  (No.  III.)  so  that  it  must  be 
nearly  contemporary  ;  circ.  B.C.  480  (?). 

No.  V.  (PI.  IV.  2 ;  Fig.  C).  Seated  figures  are  rare  on  archaic  coins  and 
even  until  the  acre  of  Alexander  the  Great :  notable  instances  are  the  seated 
Zeus  of  Aetna,14  circ.  B.C.  476-4(31  and  the  Harmonia  (?)  seated  on  a  diphros 
on  a  coin  of  Thebes,  circ.  B.C.  446.15  Our  seated  Dionysos  shows  the  heavy 
treatment    of   the    figure    found   on  archaic  sculptured   reliefs    of   a    similar 

v  Sead,    ■          to  Coin  i  of  Ancients,  PI.  VII.  II.  .. 

12.  '-  Svoronos,    Journ.   internal.  <!'<rrch.  Num. 

■    V.  Gardner,  Types,  PI.  III.  14.  190.".,  p.  341. 

"'  Wroth,     B.    M.    Cal      Mysia,    PI.    IV.    7  '•  Theopompua   ap.    Atlien.    xiii.   605  is.  ... 

and  9.  quoted  1  •  \-  Rouse,  Greet  e                    w,  p.  281. 

11  Hill    C<                      j    ily,    PI.    I.    :'..     Cp.  li  Hill,  Coins  of        .  6    ily,  PI.  IV.  13. 

also  the  head  <>t'  a  warrior  on  a  Lycian  coin.  '"'  Head,     Guide   to    Coins   of  Ancient*,    1  I. 

B.C.   500  160  in   Hill,   P.  M.  Cat.  LyAa,   PL  XIII.  15  and  B.  M.                                     p.  72. 


character,  and  might,  independently  of  its  obverse,  be  placed  very  early  in 
the  fifth  century.  It  is  accompanied  however,  by  an  obverse  which  is  plainly 
later  than  any  of  those  previously  described,  for  on  this  obverse  the  bunch  of 
grapes  is  less  crudely  represented  and  an  inscription  (PE)  makes  its 
appearance.     I  Avould  therefore  date  the  coin  circ.  B.C.  480-470. 

The  coin  No.  VI.  (PI.  IV.  8)  as  I  have  already  remarked  is  probably 
not  of  Peparethus.  The  four  dolphins  encircling  the  bunch  of  grapes  were 
presumably  suggested  by  the  coins  of  Sicily,  on  which  they  appear  first,  at 
Syracuse,  in  the  time  of  Gelon,  i.e.  circ.  B.C.  485. 1(i  The  dolphin-rider  on 
the  reverse  is  not  satisfactorily  preserved,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  that 
it  is  a  female  figure  wearing  a  long  chiton  like  Europa  on  her  bull  on  the 
metope  of  Selinus  or  on  the  early  coins  of  Cnossus  :  a  male  dolphin-rider  is 
already  known  from  an  early  coin  (sixth  or  seventh  century  ?)  attributed  by 
Svoronos  to  the  island  of  Syros.17  The  date  of  our  coin  may  be  provisionally 
fixed  as  circ.  B.C.  480. 

Between  circ.  B.C.  470  and  400  there  is  a  broad  gap  in  the  coinage  of 
Peparethus.  During  this  period  the  island  was  no  doubt  subordinate  to 
Athens.18  The  bronze  coin  IX  figured  PL  IV.  9  may  be  placed  circ.  B.C.  400. 
It  displays  a  bearded  head  of  Dionysos  of  good  style.  No.  X.  (PI.  IV.  10) 
shows  a  beardless  Dionysos,  perhaps  of  the  third  century. 

No  native  coinage  can  be  assigned  to  the  island  during  the  fourth 
century.  In  B.C.  377  the  Peparethians  are  named  among  the  allies  of  the 
Athenian  Confederacy.  In  B.C.  361  the  town  of  Peparethus  was  besieged  by 
Alexander  tyrant  of  Pherae  and  it  is  interesting  to  know  that  two  of  his  silver 
coins  have  been  discovered  in  Scopelos.19  The  island  was  afterwards  laid  waste 
by  command  of  Philip  II.  of  Macedon  because  the  Peparethians  had  seized 
the  island  of  Halonesus.  At  the  end  of  the  third  century  (B.C.  209-200)  the 
town  was  contended  for  by  Philip  V.  of  Macedon,  by  Attains  of  Pergamum, 
and  by  the  Romans.  The  coin  (PL  IV.  11)  doubtless  belongs  to  the  second 
or  first  century  B.C.  The  worship  of  Athena,  whose  head  appears  on  it,  is 
known  from  other  sources  to  have  prevailed  at  the  towns  of  Peparethus  and 

In  conclusion,  I  set  forth  the  details  that  will  be  looked  for  by 
numismatic  readers,  some  of  whom  may  be  able  to  carry  farther  than  I  have 
done  the  dating  and  attribution  of  this  interesting  but  rather  difficult  series 
of  coins. 

1,1  A  single   dolphin  was  the  badge  of  Ceos  British    Museum  in  March    1906.      A  note  of 

ami  mi  tin-  coins  it  accompanies  the  distinctive  these   was   made   by  Mr.    Hill,   as    follows: — 

types  of  the  various  towns  of  the  island.  1.  OLc,  Head  of  Hecate  r.  hair  rolled  ;  in  front, 

17  Journ.  internal,  d'areh.  num.  1900,  p.  59  ;  arm    holding    torch.     Rev.    AAEEANA    Lion's 

cp.  Head,  B.  M.  Cat.  Carta,  p.  lix.  head  r.  ;    below,   double-axe,   JR   Size    -7.   Wt. 

11  Sir    /. <7.  I.    Index  of  Athenian   Tributary  87 '2  grains  (similar  to  B.  M.   Cat.    Thessaly, 

Allies.  PI.  X.  12).     2.  Obv.  Wheel.  Rev.  A  AE  double- 

19  Two  coins  {dans  le  commerce)  shown  at  the  axe.     At  Size  '4.  Wt.  12  6  grains. 



I. —  Winged  Figure  Type. 

Obv.     Bunch  of  grapes.    Border  of  dots. 

Rev.     Winged  male  figure   (Agon  ?),  naked,  running  r. ;    wears  boots  with 

tags ;  in  each   hand,  wreath.     Square  compartment  of  dots.     Whole  in 

incuse  square. 

M    Size    1-05.     Wt.    261    grains.     PL  IV.  1    and    Pig.  A.     In    British 
Museum,  acquired  in  1891  (B.  V.  Head,  Num.  Chron.  1891,  p.  1  ;  PI.  I. 

FlG.  A.     (Scale  2  :  1.) 

(Scale   2:1.) 

3  '  Cyrene  ';  Wroth,  Num.  Chron.  1892,  p.  I!)  ;   Hill,  J.H.S.  1807,  p.  79, 
'Chalcidice'  ?).     Found  in  Cos  together  with   Nos.  II.  B  and  III.  B,  an 
archaic  tetradrachm  of  Athens,  and  an  archaic  tetradrachm  of  Mende. 
Obverse  from  same  die  as  No.  II.  A  and  II.  B  and  II.  C. 

II. — HeraJdcs  Type. 

Obv.     Bunch  of  grapes.     Border  of  dots. 

Rev.  Head  of  bearded  Herakles  1.  in  lion's  skin.  Square  compartment  of 
dots.     Whole  in  incuse  square. 

A.  In  Sir  H.  Weber's  Coll.,  London.  JR,  Size  -95.  Wt.  265-5  grains. 
PL  IV.  3  and  Fig.  B.  Procured  from  Greece.  Obv.  from  same  die  as 
No.  I. 

B.  In  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Boston  (originally  in  the  Greenwell  Coll.). 
M  Size  •!).  '  Wt.  2643  grains.'  (B.  V.  Head,  Num.  Chron.  L891,  p.  1, 
No.  ii.  PI.  I.  4  =  Regling,  Sammlung  Warren,  No.  1410;  PI.  32, 
Fig.  1410.  The  wt.  is  there  stated  to  be  16'76  grammes.)  Found  in 
Cos  with  No.  I. 

Obv.  from  same  die  as  No.  I.      (Obc.  and  rev.  same  dies  as  II    A 


C.  la  A  Private  Collection.  M  Size  95.  Wt.  17T 5  grammes.  (Svoronos, 
Journal  internal,  d'arch.  num.  1905,  p.  339,  No.  4;  PJ.  XL  22.)  Found 
on  flic  site  of  Selinus  in  Peparethus  and  obtained  in  the  island  by  Mr. 
A.  J.  B.  Wace  ;  the  statement,  Svoronos,  I.e.  p.  340,  that  this  coin  (and 
III.  A.  infra)  were  found  in  Skiathos,  is  based  on  a  misapprehension. 
(Information  from  Mr.  Wace.) 

Obv.  from  same  die  as  No.  I.  Obv.  (and  rev.  ?)  same  dies  as  II.  A 
and  II.  B.  • 

The  obv.  of  II.  D  and  E  next  to  be  described  differs  from  the  obvr 
of  II.  A,  B,  C,  in  having  a  small  bunch  of  grapes  on  each  side  of  the 
large  bunch. 

D.  In  British  Museum,  acquired  in  1872  from  Edward  Wigan's  collection. 
M  Size  1.  Wt,  256  grains.  PL  IV.  5.  (Head,  Num.  Chron,  1891,  p.  1, 
No.  iii.  PI.  I.  5.)     Provenance  unknown. 

Rev.  from  same  die  as  II.  A  and  II.  B. 

E.  Dans  le  commerce,  1906.  JR  Euboic  tetradrachm.  Found  in  Scopelos 

Obv.  and  rev.  from  same  dies  as  II.  D. 

III.— Helmet  Type. 

Obv.     Bunch  of  grapes,  flanked  by  two  smaller  bunches.     Border  of  dots. 
Rev.     Crested  Corinthian  helmet  r.  within  incuse  square. 

A.  In  A  Private  Collection.  M  tetradrachm.  Wt.  16*75  grammes. 
(Svoronos,  I.e.  p.  339,  No.  1,  PI.  XL  19.)  PL  IV.  4.  Found  on  the  site 
of  Selinus  in  Peparethus,  and  obtained  in  the  island  by  Mr.  A.  J.  B. 
Wace.     (Information  from  Mr.  Wace.) 

Obv.  from  same  die  as  No.  II.  D. 

B.  In  British  Museum,  acquired  1891.  M  Size  1-05.  Wt.  253-4. 
(Head,  Num.  Chron,  1891,  p.  2,  No.  iv.  PI.  I.  6;  wt.  stated  as 
261-3  grains.)     PL  IV.  6.     Found  in  Cos  with  No.  I.  etc. 

Obv.  aud  rev.  from  same  dies  as  No.   III.  A. 

C.  In  A  Private  Collection  ?  M  tetradrachm.  Wt.  16-50  grammes. 
Found,  by  a  native  of  Thessaly,  77700?  votov  tov  'OXv/jlttov.  (Svoronos,  /  c. 
p.  339,  No.  2 ;   PI.  xi.  20.) 

Obv.  and  rev.  from  same  dies  as  No.  III.  A. 

D.  Dans  le  commerce.  JR  tetradrachm,  shown  at  the  British  Museum  in 
1904.     Obtained  near  Salonica. 

I V. — Ivy-wreath  Type. 

Obv.  Bunch  of  grapes  Hanked  by  two  smaller  bunches.  Border  of  dots. 
(Flaw  in   die,  on  r.) 



Rev.  Ornamental  device  consisting  of  a  pellet  surrounded  by  dots  and  four 
ivy-leaves  arranged  diagonally.  (Votive  ivy-wreath  ?)  Square  compart- 
ment of  dots.     Whole  in  incuse  square. 

In  A  Private  Collection.  M  tetradrachm.  Wt.  1768  grammes. 
Found  by  a  native  of  Thessaly,  7rpo?  votov  tov  'OXv/ulttou.  (Svoronos,  /.c. 
p.  339,  No.  3  ;  PL  XI.  21.)  PI.  IV.  7.  (Casts  of  this  and  of  No.  III.  A 
have  been  kindly  supplied  by  M.  Svoronos.) 

Obv.  from  the  same  dies  as  Nos.  II.  D,  E. 

V. — Seated  Dionysos  Type. 

Obv.  Bunch  of  grapes,  with  slight  indications  of  smaller  bunch  at  each 
side.  On  1.,  PE  (the  E  repeated  through  double-striking).  Border  of 

Rev.  Dionysos  with  long  beard  and  long  hair,  seated  1.  on  diphros  ;  himation 
over  lower  limbs;  in  outstretched  r.,  kantharos;   1.  hand,  resting  on  side, 

Fig.  C.     (Scale  2:1.) 

holds  thyrsos.  Square  compartment  of  dots.  Whole  in  incuse  square. 
M  plated  with  silver.  Size  P05.  Wt.  220*3  -rains.  PI.  IV.  2  and 
Fig.  C.     In  British  Museum,  purchased  in  1906. 

Found  in  Scopelos  (Peparethus). 

VI. — Ralph  in -rider  Type. 

Obv.     Bunch  of  grapes,  around  which  four  dolphins  swimming. 

Rev.     Figure  riding  1.  on  dolphin   (apparently  a  female  figure  wearing  long 

chiton  girt  at  waist);   the  type  within  an  incuse  square  to  which  it  is 

adjusted  diagonally. 

In   British   Museum,   purchased    (together   with   No.   V.)    1906. 
M   Size   1*2.     Wt.   259  grains.     PI.  IV.  8.     Found   at    Demetrias  in 
H.S.  VOL.  XXVII.  H 


VLI.-IX. — Bronze  Coins  of  Peparethus. 

VII.     Obv.     Head  of  bearded  Dionysos  r.,  wreathed  with  ivy. 

Rev.     P  E  Kantharos;   wreathed  with  vine-leaf  and  two  bunches  of 
grapes;  circular  incuse. 

British  Museum,  acquired  in  1906.  M  Size  '55.  Found' 
in  Scopelos.     PL  IV.  9. 

VIII.     Obv.     Head  of  beardless  Dionysos  r.,  wreathed  with  ivy. 
Rev.     P  E  Kantharos. 

British  Museum,  acquired  in  1891.  M  Size  ^o.. 
Obtained  in  Greece?     PI.  IV.  lO. 

IX.     Obv.     Head  of  Athena  r.  in  helmet. 
Rev.     n  E  Bunch  of  grapes. 

n  a 

British  Museum,  acquired  in  1891.  M  Size  -55. 
Obtained  in  Greece?     PI.  IV.  11. 

(For  other  bronze  coins  of  Peparethus,  see  Gardner,  B.M. 
Cat.  Thcssaly,  etc.  s. v.  Peparethus;  Macdonald,  Hunter  Cat.  I. 
p.  460.) 

Warwick  Wroth. 

J.   H.  S.   VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  V 


J.   H.  S.  VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  VI 


J.   H.  S.   VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  VII. 


J.   H.  S.  VOL.   XXVII    (1907).     PL    VIII 


J.   H.  S.  VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  IX. 


J.   H.  ?.  VOL.   XXVII    (1907).     PL.    X. 


J.  H.  S.  VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  XI. 


J.    H.   S.   VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).      PL.    XII. 






[Plates  V.— XII.] 

In  the  collection  of  Sir  Frederick  Cook  at  Doughty  House,  Richmond, 
are  nine  fragments  of  a  large  sarcophagus  of  surpassing  interest  for  the 
modern  scientific  history  of  art.  They  were  identified  some  two  years  ago  by 
Mrs.  Arthur  Strong,  who  is  engaged  upon  a  new  illustrated  catalogue  of  the 
Richmond  antiques1  which  is  shortly  to  appear  in  this  Journal.  Mrs.  Strong 
at  once  communicated  to  me  the  existence  of  a  sarcophagus  of  so  much 
importance  for  the  studies  I  had  initiated  in  my  book  Orient  oder  Rom,  and, 
by  the  courtesy  of  the  owner,  I  at  the  same  time  received  a  set  of 
photographs  of  the  nine  fragments. 

I  shall  first  describe  the  fragments,  determining  at  the  same  time,  by 
comparison  with  kindred  examples,  the  Art  group  to  which  they  belong,  and 
shall  then  endeavour  to  make  clear  their  significance. 

Of  the  nine  fragments,  which  are  all  about  the  same  height  (3  ft.  3  in.) 
and  thickness,  eight  are  decorated  with  single  figures  executed  in  high  relief 
and  almost  detached  from  the  background,  resembling,  in  fact,  statues  in 
niches.     One  fragment  alone,  which  I  will  take  first,  forms  an  exception. 

A. — Fig.  1  (height  2  ft.  7h  in.,  breadth  1  ft.).  Here  we  see  a  door,  in  the 
opening  of  which  is  a  table  standing  on  four  lion's  feet;  upon  this  is  a 
circular  altar,  whence  flames  seem  to  rise.  Over  the  door-lintel  with  its 
straight  moulding  is  a  |"~~|  shaped  upper  member  that  displays,  under 
broad  dentils,  a  scroll-work  of  peculiar  character.  This  panel  supports  a 
projecting    impost    and    is    decorated   with    the    same    scroll-work    disposed 

1  The  Richmond  collection  is,  of  course,  in-  ments.      According    to    Sir   Frederick    Cook's 

eluded  in  Michaelis'  Ancient  }farblcs  in  Great  house-steward    they    had    been    for   over    fifty 

Britain.     At   the   time    when    this   book    was  years  in  a  garden  in   London,  and  were  quite 

published,  the  sarcophagus  now  described  was  black  with   London  dirt  when  they  were  first 

not  yet  in  the  collection.     It  was  purchased  by  brought  to  Richmond.      Till  two  years  ago  two 

the' late  owner,  Sir  Francis  Cook,  about  twenty-  of    the   fragments    remained   in    the   Doughty 

two  years  ago.     Mrs.  Strong  has  been  unable  House  Conservatory. 
to  discover  the  previous  history  of  these  frag- 

II    'I 


symmetrically  to  the  centre.  The  door  thus  described  stands  in  front  of  a 
pediment,  which  rests  on  spiral-fluted  columns.  Below  the  pediment  is  a 
scallop-shell.  Above  this  shell  appears  an  architrave  broken  in  the  centre. 
Like  the  geison,  it  is  composed  of  a  fillet  from  which  hang  irregular  dentils. 

Fig  1.— Fragment  A  of  the  Cook  Sarcophagus. 

It  is  filled  up  by  two  huge  members  borrowed  from  an  egg-moulding  and 
these  reappear  on  each  side  of  the  shell.  The  pediment  terminates  at  the 
top  with  a  border  upon  which  a  tendril  is  carved,  not  in  relief,  but  in  a 
new  coloristic  manner.     Above  the  fillet  are  horizontal  oo-shaped  Acroteria. 



There  exists  a  whole  series  of  sarcophagi,  all  of  which  display  on  one 
narrow  end  the  same  door  in  front  of  a  shell  pediment,  and  also  correspond 
in  ornament  and  in  technical  execution  with  the  fragments  at  Richmond. 
We    can    best    form    an    idea    of   what    the    Richmond    sarcophagus,   when 

Fig.  2.— The  Sidamara  Saro  iphagus. 

complete,    was   like   by   reference    to    the    huge   sarcophagus  d  at 

Ambar-arassy,  125  kilometres  west-south-west  ofKonia   the  ancient  [conium) 

in   Asia  Minor,  now  in   the  Imperial  Ottoman   Museum 

and   known  as   'the   Sidamara   Sarcophagus'    {Monuim    U    V    ',    ix.   Plates 



Fig.  2  shews  all  the  details  described  in  Sir  Frederick  Cook's  fragment. 
Here,  however,  the  central  design  is  flanked  on  the  left  by  a  woman,  on  the 
right  by  a  man,  and  the  whole  is  enclosed  within  two  columns  surmounted  by 
tall  imposts.  Similar  examples  are  to  be  found  also  in  the  Louvre,2  in  the 
Giardino  Colonna  in  Rome,3  at  Athens,4  and  at  Ueskeles  in  Asia  Minor.5 

B. — PI.  V.  (breadth  2  ft.  1  in.)  reproduces  the  first  of  three  nude  figures 
of  youths.  The  figure  is  shewn  standing  in  front  view;  the  weight  is  on  the 
right  leg,  and  the  left  leg  is  at  ease ;  the  head  is  turned  in  profile  to  the 
right.  Long  curls  fall  down  to  the  shoulders,  over  which  is  thrown  a 
chlamys.  The  left  hand  catches  the  drapery  up  in  a  knot  and  holds 
downwards  a  bough  laden  with  fruit ;  the  right  is  lowered  and  grasps  an 
object  of  uncertain  shape.  It  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty  what 
it  is  that  the  youth  holds  in  such  a  peculiar  way — possibly  a  staff.6 
In  the  corresponding  examples  also,  this  hand  is  always  broken  awa}7.  It 
is  so  in  a  sarcophagus  at  Ismidt 7  (Nicomedia),  and  in  a  fragment  not  yet 
published,  which  I  found  in  the  front  garden  of  the  Turkish  gymnasium 
(Idadie)  at  Smyrna.  Its  size  is  0'50  metre  X  0"7l  metre.  Fig.  3  shews  a 
quantity  of  fragments ;  below  in  the  centre  is  the  same  youth,  with  sides 
reversed,  but  with  both  arms  in  the  same  position.  Here  too  the  figure  stauds 
beneath  the  same  rounded  pediment  in  front  of  the  scallop-shell,  and  between 
the  same  characteristic  columns  as  in  the  Richmond  fragment.  The  head  is 
unfortunately  broken  away.  On  the  sarcophagus  at  Ismidt  the  head  is 
turned  to  the  left,  but  the  figure  is  placed  beneath  the  same  rounded  arch. 
A  parallel  may  perhaps  also  be  found  in  the  central  figure  of  the  Colonna 
sarcophagus.s  Since,  in  the  fragment  B,  the  left-hand  capital  is  fully 
sculptured  on  the  return  face,  the  fragment  must  belong  to  one  of  the  angles 
of  the  sarcophagus. 

C. — PI.  VI.  (about  16  in.).  This  '  statue'  closely  resembles  B  and  is 
almost  identical  with  the  two  reliefs  at  Smyrna  and  Ismidt.  The  figure 
stands  resting  on  the  left  leg  and  looks  to  the  left,  while  the  left  hand  is 
raised  and  hidden  under  the  chlamys.  Behind  it  is  the  pediment  with  the 
scallop-shell,  and  on  the  right  the  capital  of  a  column. 

B. — PI.  VII.  (ab.  1G  in.).  This  nude  youth  differs  from  the  others  in  so 
far  that  he  is  not  standing  in  full  front  view,  but  is  turned  somewhat  to  the 

2  Miction,  Mdawjesd'ArcMologic,  xxvi.  p.  81.  the  hoof  of  ahorse.     Mrs.  Strong  accordingly 

3  Munoz,  Monumcnti  d'Arte,  i.  3.  thinks    the    fragment   may    belong   to   a   lost 

4  Mendel,  Bull,  de  Gorr.  Hell.  xxvi.  p.  236.  Dioscuius,  as  on  the  left  of  the  Sidamara  and 

5  The  same,  p.  235.  Selefkeh  sarcophagi  ;  or  seeing  that  this  basis 

6  Mrs.  Strong  does  not  consider  that  the  differs  in  shape  from  that  of  the  other  columns 
fragment  now  plastered  up  at  the  bottom  on  usually  found  on  the  long  sides  of  these  sarco- 
the  left  of  B  can  belong  here.  Though  the  phagi,  that  it  may  belong  to  one  of  the  shorter 
foot  fairly  suits  the  pose  of  B's  right  leg,  so  it  sides  (cf.  Sidamara,  the  short  side  with  the 
would  that  of  many  another  figure.     Moreover,  huntsman,  Mon.  Piot,  ix.  Plate  XIX.  2). 

if  the  foot  is  placed  correctly  in  relation  to  B,  7  Reproduced    by    Munoz,    V  Arte,    ix.     p. 

then  the  base  of  the  column  is  out  of  line  with       133. 

the  shaft.     ]>y  the  side  of  the  base  may  be  seen  8  Monumcnti  d'Arte,  Tav.  i.  3,  below. 


right.  The  curly  head  is  turned  to  the  left  in  three-quarters  profile,  and 
round  it  may  be  seen  what  appears  to  be  a  laurel  wreath  (?).  His  movement 
is  directed  to  that  side  as  though  by  stretching  out  his  Left  arm,  which  is 
raised  under  the  chlamys,  he  had  to  overcome  some  resistance  there.  The 
identification  of  this  figure  as  a  Dioscurus  would  be  in  keeping  with  the 
whole  attitude,  which  we  may  compare  in  this  respect  with  the  corresponding 
figures  in  our  group  of  sarcophagi.  Fig.  4  shews  as  a  parallel  example  one  of 
the  Dioscuri  on  the  sarcophagus  from  Sidamara.     Baneatb  the  rounded  arch 

Fig.  3.— Sarcophagus  Fragments  ,w  Smyrna. 

the  figure  stands  in  its  niche.  The  position  oi  the  legs  is  the  same.  The 
treatment  is  somewhat  broader,  that  is,  flatter,  but  the  movement  corresponds 
exactly,  only  that  the  head  is  more  raised.  Here,  however,  the  Dioscurus  is 
reining  in  his  horse — to  the  left  the  hind-quartera  of  the  horse  are  indicated 
in  low  relief;  to  the  right,  beside  the  youth,  the  forepart  of  the  horse  is  seen 
in  a  rearing  posture,  cutting  across  the  column.  His  lifted  forefeet  are 
carved   in   bold   relief  and   only   united   to  the  body  of  the  sarcophagus   by 


means  of  '  puntelli.'  These  '  puntelli '  also  occur  on  Sir  Frederick  Cook's 
fragment,  one  below  on  the  pedestal,  the  other  above  on  the  chlamys,  in  front 
of  the  shaft  of  the  column.  Thus  one  thing  only  is  lacking,  and  that  is  the 
horse  itself,  of  which  no  traces  exist  behind  the  figure.  It  is  just  possible 
that  it  was  placed  round  the  corner  on  the  adjoining  side  of  the  sarcophagus, 
and,  as  a  fact,  this  figure  belongs  to  an  angle  of  the  sarcophagus,  for  the  right- 
hand  capital  is  sculptured  on  its  return  face.  But  in  that  case  this  sarco- 
phagus would  differ  from  all  the  others  of  the  group.  We  already  find 
the  Dioscuri  on  the  oldest  example  in  the  Riccardi  Palace  at  Florence,9  then 
on  the  great  sarcophagus  from  Selefkeh  in  the  Imperial  Ottoman  Museum,10 

Fig.  4. — Dioscurus  from  the  Sidamara  Sarcophagus. 

and  on  the  Achilles-sarcophagus  in  the  Museum  at  Konia.11     It  is  significant 
that  Mrs.  Strong  discovered  on  the  fragment  B  (PI.  V.)  the  hoof  of  a  horse. 

E. — I  pass  now  to  two  male  figures  in  flowing  drapery.  Of  these  the  most 
important  from  its  motive  is  illustrated  on  PI.  VIII.  Here  we  have  under  the 
same  typical  rounded  niche  a  beardless  man,  in  front  view.  Both  hands  are 
lowered,  the  left  hand  holding  a  roll,  the  right  dragging;  one  corner  of  his 
mantle  to  the  left.  At  the  same  time  he  looks  eagerly  to  the  right;  his 
curly  hair  is  cut  short.     Over  an  ample  chiton  he  wears  a  mantle  which  is 

9  Strzygowski,  Orient  oder  Horn,  p.  52.  u  Bull,  dc  Con:  Hell.  xxvi.  p.  225,  Fig.  5. 

10  The  same,  p.  47. 



thrown  first  over  his  left  shoulder;  it  is  next  brought  round  his  right  hip  and 
is  then  drawn,  with  a  strikingly  executed  twist,  over  the  wrist  of  his  left 
hand.  Finally  it  is  gathered  below  into  energetic  horizontal  folds.  Even 
this  strikingly  original  figure,  conceived,  one  might  say,  in  the  spirit  of  a 
master  of  Donatello's  vigorous  individuality,  has  its  analogy  on  the  sarco- 
phagus discovered  in  Asia  Minor.  The  motive  of  the  fold  crossing  over 
the  body  and  over  the  wrist  is  to  be  found  also  in  Fig.  2,  the  man  standing 
beside  the  doorway  in  the  Sidamara  sarcophagus.  This  particular  motive, 
however,  often  recurs.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  fold  below  drawn  across 
horizontally.     To  my  mind  it  is  curious  that  this  original  and  peculiar  drapery 

Fig.  5. — Sarcophagus  from  Selefkeu  at  Constantinople. 

also  should  recur  in  precisely  identical  form  on  the  great  sarcophagus  from 
Selefkeh  at  Constantinople.  Fig.  5  shews  one  of  the  broader  sides  of  this 
monument.  In  the  centre  we  see  a  nude  youth  holding  a  bough  in  his  left 
hand,  like  B  of  the  Richmond  sarcophagus ;  then  on  each  side  a  female  figure  ; 
finally,  at  each  of  the  ends,  a  draped  male  figure.  Even  in  the  reduced 
illustration,  and  though  this  figure  stands  quite  at  the  extreme  end,  we 
cannot  fail  to  recognise  that  it  is  identical  in  every  particular — the  supporting 
leg  and  the  leg  at  rest,  the  turn  of  the  head,  the  position  of  the  arms,  the 
left  hand  holding  the  roll,  and  last,  not  least,  the  two  horizontal  folds  in  the 
drapery,  one  above  the  other. 

F. — PI.  IX.  (17  in.).  Thisfigure  produces  the  impression  of  a  Herm  :  the 
upper  part  of  the  body  is  closely  compressed,  while  the  mass  of  drapery 
diminishes  towards  the  feet.  The  arms  and  hands  are  entirely  covered  by  a 
pallium  which  falls  downwards  with  a  grand  vertical  sweep.     The  right  arm 


under  it  is  raised  to  the  breast ;  the  left  is  placed  in  front  of  the  body  ;  the 
head  with  its  short  curly  hair  looks  to  the  right.       As  yet  I  have  found  no 
parallel  for  the  bold  scheme  of  drapery  on  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi. 
Finally  we  have  three  draped  female  statues. 

G. — The  finest  of  the  three  (PI.  X)  might  just  as  well  stand  on  the 
Campanile  or  on  Or  San  Michele  at  Florence.  There  it  would  be  appreciated 
at  its  true  artistic  value,  but  being  on  a  late  antique  sarcophagus  it 
finds  no  favour.  The  slender  figure  stands  erect  and  taper-like  ;  the  turn  of 
the  throat  and  head  do  not  introduce  a  sense  of  movement  so  much  as  add  to 
the  impression  of  dignity  and  repose.  Her  right  arm  rests  in  a  fold  of  the 
mantle  ;  the  left  hangs  down,  holding  a  roll.  Here  too  the  principal  charm  of 
the  composition  resides  in  the  drapery.  The  view  reproduced  in  PI.  X. 
shews  clearly  how  the  upper  portion  of  the  mantle  passes  over  from  the  left 
to  the  right  shoulder,  turns  back  again  below  it  at  an  angle,  and  crosses  to  the 
left  hand.  The  drapery  is  stretched  perpendicularly  over  the  left  arm.  An 
exact  replica  of  this  beautiful  figure  occurs  on  a  sarcophagus  at  Brussa1'2 — 
without,  indeed,  the  great  distinction  of  style  of  the  Richmond  example. 
The  angle  formed  by  the  folds  of  drapery  over  the  right  hip  is  here  mechanic- 
ally copied  and  becomes  a  mere  caricature.  The  left  hand  again  is  lowered, 
holding  a  roll.     A  similar  figure  occurs  on  the  Colonna  sarcophagus. 

H. — PI.  XL  A  figure  with  dignified  and  expressive  action  such  as  a 
Gothic  artist  might  have  chosen  for  Mary  in  the  Annunciation.  This 
woman  turns  to  the  left,  but  leans  back  slightly  to  the  right  with  the  upper 
part  of  her  body.  She  grasps  the  folds  of  her  mantle  together  in  front  as  if 
alarmed,  a  gesture  which  suits  the  serious  expression  of  her  face ;  her  left 
hand  remains  caught  in  the  folds  over  her  breast.  For  this  impressive 
creation  I  know  of  no  parallel  among  any  of  the  sarcophagus  sculptures 
hitherto  discovered  in  Asia  Minor. 

J. — PI.  XII.  Here  we  have  a  woman,  in  front  view,  with  her  head, 
over  which  her  veil  is  drawn,  turned  to  the  left.  Her  right  arm  emerges 
from  her  short-sleeved  chiton  and  is  brought  across  her  breast  to  her  left, 
where  it  rests  on  the  veil ;  with  her  left  hand  she  gathers  her  veil  together  in 
a  bunch  which  she  raises  towards  her  left.  This  figure  is  not  uncommon — 
the  pose  is  such  as  we  find  repeated  four  times  on  the  two  longer  sides  of 
the  great  Selefkeh  sarcophagus  in  the  Imperial  Ottoman  Museum  ;  the  women 
on  each  side  of  the  central  figure  always  hold  the  ends  of  their  mantle 
together  with  their  left  hand  as  in  the  Richmond  example.  Fig.  5  shews 
that  one  of  these  four  statues  that  most  nearly  resembles  our  figure.  The 
woman  stands  to  the  right  between  the  central  figure  and  the  youth  at  the 
corner.  She  holds  her  arm  as  in  the  Richmond  fragment,  across  her  breast, 
but  the  whole  action  looks  like  a  weak  imitation,  whilst  the  decided  power 
displayed  in  the  Richmond  figure  seems  to  give  evidence  of  an  original 

12  L'AHe   is.  p.  131,  Fig.  I. 


The  foregoing  description  and  comparison  with  corresponding  sculptures 
prove  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  nine  Richmond  fragments  belong  to  the  type 
of  sarcophagi  from  Asia  Minor  to  which  I  first  drew  attention  in  Orient 
oder  Bom,  pp.  40  f.  My  object  then  was  to  assign  to  its  proper  group  in  art 
a  relief  with  a  figure  of  Christ,  purchased  in  Constantinople  for  the  Berlin 
Museum.  No  pieces  of  Christian  sculpture  have  been  added  to  the  group 
then  spoken  of,  but  the  number  of  antique  examples  has  meanwhile  so  much 
increased  that  we  may  safely  say  there  can  scarcely  be  any  of  the  larger 
museums  that  does  not  possess  a  fragment.13  Therefore  when  I  undertook  to 
publish  the  Richmond  fragments,  it  was  not  to  add  a  new  piece  to  the 
sculptures  already  known,  nor  because  here  was  a  specially  well  preserved 
example  such  as  the  sarcophagus  from  Sidamara,  but  because,  from  an  artistic 
point  of  view,  the  fragments  belonging  to  Sir  Frederick  Cook  occupy  by  far 
the  most  important  place  and  thus  can  best  enable  us  to  enter  into  the  spirit  of 
that  side  of  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi  which  till  now  has  been  neglected  by 
everyone,  namely,  the  statuary  motives.  I  myself,  in  1903,  in  my  book 
Orient  oder  Bom,  only  went  into  the  subject  so  far  as  was  necessary  in 
order  to  elucidate  the  fragment  in  Berlin  with  the  figure  of  Christ.  My 
chief  object  then  and  afterwards  in  my  work  on  Mschatta  u  was  to  determine 
the  special  style  of  ornament  which  decorated  the  architectural  setting  and 
to  investigate  its  origin.  I  should  like  to  refer  briefly  to  this  before  I  enter 
upon  an  examination  of  the  actual  architectural  structure  and  of  the  statuary 

Only  in  one  of  the  Richmond  fragments  (B)  were  both  the  columns  on 
either  side  of  the  figure  preserved,  everywhere  else  only  the  column  to  the 
right.  It  almost  seems  as  if  the  sarcophagus,  perhaps  discovered  intact,  had 
been  purposely  broken  into  pieces  in  order  that  it  might  be  more  easily 
transported  abroad.  All  these  fragments  have  the  same  architectonic  back- 
grounds. The  spiral-fluted  shaft  of  the  column  stands  on  a  Hellenistic 
plinth15  and  a  peculiar  base;  the  lower  moulding  projects  broadly,  in  shape 
like  a  plate,  while  the  upper  moulding  is  flat  between  two  broad  fillets. 
These  characteristics  are  common  to  all  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi.  The  capital 
is  not  quite  so  uniform  ;  we  have  here,  it  seems,  an  important  evolution 
which  may  enable  us  to  fix  the  date  of  the  sculpture.  The  capital  in  the 
Richmond  fragments  spreads  out  to  both  sides  almost  square  over  the  lower 
row  of  acanthus  leaves,  and  displays  four  remarkably  large  volutes  side  by 
side.  On  the  oldest  example — the  marriage  sarcophagus  in  the  Palazzo 
Riccardi  (Fig.  G  a) — the  acanthus  is  spoon-shaped,  and  the  sarcophagus  in  the 
Colonna  garden  also  deviates  somewhat  from  the  Asia  Minor  type.  I  here 
reproduce  one  of  its  capitals  (6  b) ;  the  acanthus  leaves  lie  flat  without  the 
elegant  curve  of  the  profile  or  of  the  lobes.     The  effect  is  obtained  more  by 

13  Cf.    the    examples    brought    together    by  xxvi.  pp.  79  f. 
Strzygowski,  Orient  oder  Horn,  ss.   40  f.,   and  M  Jahrbueh  der  konigh  schenKunst- 

Byz.  Zeitschrift,  x.  726,  and  xv.  419  ;  Munoz,  tammlun*  pp.  205  f. 

Kuovo  Bull,  di  Arch.    Christ,    xi.   81  f.,   and  l5  Cf.    GoU  elehrte  Anzeigen,   1906 

L Art,:   ix.  132  ;  Michon,  MiUmget  d'Archeol.  pp.  911  f. 



means  of  the  dark  triangular  hollows  between  the  little  lobes  than  by  the  model- 
ling of  the  leaf  itself.  A  similar  tendency  in  the  cutting  of  the  leaves  is  to 
be  observed  in  the  decoration  of  several  blocks  found  in  the  theatre  at 
Ephesus  (6  c).  These  display  on  their  semicircular  face  the  same  vertical 
acanthus  divided  down  the  centre  by  the  lotus  (Fig.  6  c).  Here  the  purpose 
of  the  flat  rendering  and  of  the  effect  of  the  dark  interspaces  is  still  more 
striking.  Then  follows  the  type  which  is  represented  by  the  Richmond 
fragments  and  the  bulk  of  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi  (6  d).  Hitherto  the 
foliage  had  been  carved  with  the  chisel ;  now  it  is  exclusively  worked  with  the 
borer  ;  the  modelling  becomes  of  entirely  secondary  importance  by  comparison 
with  the  deeply  bored  interspaces.     The  leaf  itself  in  its  actual  shape  really 

Tig.  6. — Development  of  the  Sarcophagus-Capitals. 

exists  no  longer  ;  only  an  impression  of  it  is  produced  by  the  coloristic  contrast 
between  the  white,  jagged  edges  of  the  leaf  and  the  dark  background.  This 
technique,  with  the  intended  impressionism  of  its  decoration,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  entire  group  of  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi.  Later  we  find  it  abandoned 
in  favour  of  a  method  which  became  common  in  the  Prokonnesos  just  out- 
side Byzantium  ;  here  the  chisel  completes  the  work  of  the  borer.  This  type 
is  well  represented  by  the  capitals  of  the  fragment  of  the  Christ  relief  at 
Berlin  (6  c),  where  the  acanthus  assumes  a  novel,  thickly  jagged,  form.6 

16  See  on  this  point  my  Orient  oder  Rom,  p.  56. 



To  keep  to  the  ornamentation  of  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi  in  general. 
Look  at  the  impost  above  the  capitals  (6  d).  What  has  happened  to  the 
Greek  egg-moulding  in  the  upper  border  ?  The  dark  background  dominates 
the  circle  in  the  middle  and  the  strips  at  the  side,  and  the  ornament  below 
with  the  trident  is  meant  to  represent  the  ancient  Lesbian  cymatium  !  How- 
ever, the  whole  member,  slightly  curved  at  the  sides  on  which  these  two 
strips  appear,  is  scarcely  recognisable,  owing  to  its  projection,  as  a  part  of 
the  ancient  architrave.  But  as  little  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  gable-lines 
of  the  pediment  with  their  dog-tooth  moulding  are  the  purely  decorative 
transformation    of   an    antique    design.       How    this    transformation,    which 


Fig.  7.— Relief  at  Berlin. 

probably  originated  in  Mesopotamia,  was  accomplished,  and  how  the 
oriental  decorative  style  of  composition  in  white  and  black  came  to  sup- 
plant the  Greek  method  of  modelling  the  foliage  in  light  and  shadow,  can 
be  studied  in  my  work  on  Mschatta  and  in  an  article  of  mine  on  the 
'  Fate  of  Hellenism  in  the  formative  Arts.' 17 

In  contrast  with  the  important  revolution  wrought  in  the  rendering  of 
the  forms  in  ornament  where  we  see  the  motives  handed  down  from  Greek 

17  Die  Schickaale  d<s  Hellenismus  in  der  bildenden  Ku,isf  mNcue  JahrbUcher  fur  das  klassische 
Alterthum,  xv.  pp.  19  f. 



art  conceived  in  an  entirely  novel  style  by  means  of  colour  instead  of  form, 
the  figures  on  our  sarcophagi  keep  wholly  within  the  range  of  a  period  of 
ancient  art  long  previous  to  the  time  of  their  production.  I  fixed  the  date  of 
the  Christ  relief  in  Berlin,  from  which  my  researches  in  Orient  oder  Rom 
started,  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  the  sarcophagus  in  the  Palazzo 
Riccardi  is  assigned  to  the  Antonine  period,  and  the  greater  number  of  the 
examples  in  our  group  must  have  been  produced  in  the  interval  between 
these  dates.  They  all  belong,  therefore,  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
Christian  era,  yet  the  figures  on  them  do  not  adhere  to  that  picturesque 
illusionist  tendency  in  art  observable  in  those  Hellenistic  reliefs  produced 
in  the  centuries  about  Christ's  birth,  where  the  aim  was  to  evoke  the 
illusion  of  space,  nor  do  they  follow  in  the  steps  of  the  Pergamene  and 
Rhodian  '  Barocco  '  of  the  preceding  period.    They  are  typical  examples  of  that 

Fig.  8. — Sarcophagus  Fragment  in  the  British  Museum. 

Greek  plastic  art  which  flourished  before  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  which  sought  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  figure  in  plastic  form  either 
as  nudes  standing  in  repose  or  as  highly  perfected  systems  of  drapery.  It 
is  the  art  of  the  fourth  century  which  again  makes  its  appearance  in  the 
types  of  statues  on  our  sarcophagi.  That  is  the  point  on  which  the 
fragments  of  the  Richmond  sarcophagus  furnish  us  with  such  excellent 

This  fact  had  already  struck  me  in  the  Christ  relief  in  Berlin.18  The 
Saviour  (Fig.  7),  in  attitude  and  drapery,  shews  the  type  of  the  ancient 
orator,  the   best   known    example  of  which   is  the   statue  of   Sophocles  in 

13  Orient  oder  Rom,  p.  59. 



the  Lateran.  The  head  of  the  Christ,  moreover,  closely  resembles  that  of 
the  Praxitelean  Eubuleus.  A  similar  head,  somewhat  resembling  the  Eros  of 
Centocelle  and  also  reproduced  in  the  ancient  Christian  statuettes  of  the 
Good  Shepherd,  is  shewn  in  the  fragments  B  and  C,  the  two  youths 
standing  quietly  in  front  view.  In  position  and  bearing  also  they  correspond 
with  that  group  of  figures  which  we  like  to  associate  with  the  name  of 
Praxiteles.  With  the  exception  of  a 
few  alterations  necessitated  by  the 
composition  within  a  niche,  B  might 
be  regarded  as  a  copy  of  the  Hermes. 
Types  like  those  of  the  Dioscuri,  which 
frequently  appear  on  our  sarcophagi 
as  corner  figures,  trace  their  origin 
back  into  the  fourth  and  even  the  fifth 
century,  and  are  exemplified  in  the 
fragment  C.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
the  Richmond  sarcophagus,  when  it 
was  still  perfect,  displayed  as  the 
principal  figure  on  one  of  its  longer 
sides  a  seated  statue,  such  as  we  find 
on  the  sarcophagi  of  Sidamara  ami 
Selefkeh.  The  British  Museum  pos- 
sesses a  fragment  of  the  same  kind 
(Fig.  S).  We  have  here  a  composition 
in  flattened  relief  showing  a  bearded 
man  reading  from  a  roll.  In  front  of 
him  stands  a  Muse  with  the  tragic 
mask.  Her  head-dress  points  to  the 
Roman  period.  The  type  itself,  how- 
ever, again  belongs  to  pre-Alexandrian 
art  and  has  it  origin  in  the  reliefs  on 
Attic  tombs  in  the  style  of  Pheidias. 

The  chief  evidence  for  the  purely 
Greek  origin  of  the  types  of  statues 
on  the  Richmond  fragments  is  fur- 
nished, in  my  opinion,  by  the  draped 
figures.  Original  works  in  the  style 
of  E  energetically  clutching  the  folds 
of  his  garment  like  some  prophet 
of  Donatello's  are  incredible  in  the 
Roman  period.  This  figure  evinces  so 
much    individual  creative   power  that 

it  can  only  belong  to  a  period  of  unusual  activity  in  the  domain  of 
fonn -problems  in  statuary.  A  similar  movement  to  that  of  the  tolls  in  the 
herm-like  figure  F — the  end  of  the  mantle  drawn  from  the  right  shoulder 
straight  across  the  breast  and   over  the   left   hand — is  to  be  found   on  one 

Fig.  9.— Muse  feom  the  Maniiman 



of  the  Muses  of  Praxiteles  on  the  basis  from  Mantinea.  Notice  on  one 
of  these  reliefs  (Fig.  II,  from  the  slab  with  the  three  Muses  standing)  what 
economy  of  line  prevails  in  the  arrangement  of  the  principal  folds  round 
the   breast  and   you   will  then  understand    why   I   venture  to  assign  to  the 

Fig.   10. — The  'Matron  of  Heiicilankum.'     (Dresden.) 

beautiful  draped  figure  G,  as  regards  its  type,  a  place  near  Praxiteles.  The 
so-called  Matron  of  Herculaneum  in  the  Dresden  Albertinum  confirms  me  in 
this  view  (Fig.  10).  In  this  single  statue,  as  in  Sir  F.  Cook's  fragment, 
the  chief  form-value  consists  in  the  arrangement  of   the  folds  on  the  left 


breast.  They  seem  to  be  drawn  tight  between  the  shoulder,  the  raised  right 
hand  and  the  left,  which  is  held  down.  The  position  of  the  head  and  legs 
in  the  Richmond  fragment  has  been  changed  for  the  sake  of  that 
correspondence  between  neighbouring  pairs  of  figures  which  is  usual  in  the 
Asia  Minor  sarcophagi.  The  veil,  too,  is  absent,  as  the  pileus  frequently  is 
in  the  case  of  the  Dioscuri.  Amelung19  considers  this  type  of  the  statue 
from  Herculaneum  to  have  had  its  origin  in  the  school  of  Praxiteles,  and 
P.  Hermann,  who  has  daily  opportunity  of  studying  this  grand  work  in  the 
Albertinum,  confirms  this  opinion  in  a  letter  :  '  The  Dresden  statue  is  a 
faithful  copy  of  a  sculptured  original  of  the  fourth  century,  most  probably  of 
the  circle  of  Praxiteles.  Head  and  body  belong  inseparably  to  each  other 
and  form  a  complete  artistic  whole.  In  the  Roman  period  this  Greek  type 
sometimes  served  for  portrait  statues,  and  would  be  given  a  portrait  head  in 
the  place  of  the  ideal  head  belonging  to  it.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case 
with  the  example  from  Herculaneum.' 

This  comparison  brings  us  back  once  more  into  the  '  milieu  '  to  which 
the  figures  of  this  sarcophagus  belong — to  the  time  when  artists  subsisted 
on  their  Greek  heritage  from  the  pre- Alexandrian  period,  and  were  actively 
employed  in  copying  ancient  types.  Presumably,  therefore,  the  types  of  the 
two  draped  female  figures  H  and  J  are  likewise  not  new  creations  by  an 
Asia  Minor  sculptor  of  the  Christian  era.  They  go  back  to  a  school  which  is 
represented  by  an  original ;  the  sarcophagus,  namely,  with  the  '  Mourners  ' 
(Les  Pleweuses),  discovered  at  Sidon.20  There,  too,  we  find  the  same  division 
of  the  walls  of  the  sarcophagus  into  separate  niches  in  which  are  placed,  each 
one  alike  and  by  themselves,  the  separate  mourners,  as  in  our  Asia  Minor 
sarcophagi . 

The  sarcophagus  of  the  Mourning  Women  was  found  at  Sidon  in  Syria ; 
the  details  of  its  sculptures  leave  no  doubt  of  its  connection  with  the  art  of 
southern  Asia  Minor.  It  now  remains  to  prove  that  the  Asia  Minor 
sarcophagi  also  belong  to  this  school  of  plastic  art,  and  depend  from  a  centre 
of  which  till  now  we  knew  very  little,  namely  Antioch.  For  to  the  sphere  of 
influence  of  this  Syrian  metropolis  belongs  also  the  region  on  this  side  of  the 
Taurus  whence  the  art  tendency  noticeable  in  the  Richmond  fragments  may 
have  travelled  to  the  west  of  Asia  Minor  just  as  well  as  to  Macedonia,  Greece, 
Italy  and  Rome.  For  the  present  nothing  can  be  determined  with  certainty, 
but  it  is  my  firm  conviction  that  the  Asia  Minor  type  of  sarcophagus  had  its 
origin  neither  at  Ephesus  nor  in  any  other  district  of  western  Asia  Minor, 
neither  in  Greece  nor  Rome,  but  in  the  angle  which  lay  nearest  to  Meso- 
potamia, and  had  Antioch  as  centre  of  culture.  In  proof  of  this  I  should  like 
to  bring  forward  certain  considerations. 

19  Die  Basis  des  Praxiteles  aus  MatUineia,  pp.       ('  Alterthum '),  pp.  280  f.;  cf.  aann, 

26  f. ;  S.   Reinach,  however,  ascribes  it  t"  Ly-       Kunstg  schichte,    i.    p.      154  ;     E.    Strong    in 
sippus  (/.'■  o.  Arch.  1900,  ii.  pp.  380  1'.),  likewise       Ci  u;  1901,  pp.  1S7  f. 

Collignon,    'Lysippe'   (L  Hamdy   Bey   and   Tli.   Reinach,    Les 

p.  21,   p.    Ss  .     A   middle   view   is   taken    by       Sarcoph 
Michaelis     in     Springer's  .    i- 

U.S. — VOL.    XXVII.  I 



In  favour  of  the  neighbourhood  of  Mesopotamia  is  the  composition  of 
the  ornament  by  means  of  dark  interspaces,  while  in  proof  of  the  Antiochene 
district  of  Asia  Minor  I  think  I  can  appeal  to  another  characteristic  to  which 
I  have  not  yet  called  attention ;  namely,  the  peculiar  architectural  frame 
in  which  the  Attic  figures  are  placed.  Their  shoulders  are  surrounded 
by  scallop-shells  as  by  an  arch.  But  these  shells  are  simply  a  shape  borrowed 
from  Nature  for  an  originally  purely  artistic  form — the  niche.  Where  is  the 
home  of  the  wall  niche  that  ends  at  the  top  in  a  flattened  quarter  sphere  ?  It 
is  unknown  either  to  Egypt  or  Greece,  those  two  great  master-powers  of  wood 

Fig.  11. — Xiciie  in  Cemetery  of  the  Tulvnids,  near  Cairo. 

and  stone  building.  A  priori,  therefore,  it  might  well  have  originated  in  the- 
East ;  and  this  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  the  art  of  Islam,  in  the  final  form 
in  which  it  penetrated  from  Bagdad  into  the  West,  makes  such  an  extensive 
use  of  the  niche  that  the  entrance  of  all  secular  and  sacred  Mohammedan 
buildings  develops  into  the  typical  niche  form  of  the  '  Sublime  Porte/  and 
also  the  Mihrab,  which  takes  the  direction  of  the  national  sanctuary  at  Mecca, 
is  given  in  this  same  shape.  Even  the  shell  is  to  be  found  in  one  of  the 
oldest  examples  ;  Fig.  11  shews  this  Islamic  form.  I  found  this  shell-niche  in 
the  year  1895  in  the  cemetery  of  the  Tulunids,  which  lies  to  the  south  of 


Cairo  outside  Bab-el-Karafa,  and  of  which  Makrisi,  as  early  as  the  year  142U, 
reports  that  there  were  many  oratories  there,  into  which  holy  men  were  wont 
to  retire.21  The  Mihrab  of  Imam  Schaffai,  situated  near  the  mausoleum,  the 
chief  holy  place  of  this  district,  was  probably  the  last  remains  of  one  of  these 
oratories  (it  has  since  disappeared).  In  my  photograph  the  shell  can  be 
plainly  seen ;  it  was  rendered  in  stucco,  and  the  ornaments  in  the  spandrils, 
which  complete  the  pointed  niche  in  a  square,  are  carried  out  in  the  same 
material.  This  frame  motive  itself  as  well  as  the  tendril-work  is  of  typically 
Persian  origin.  Evidences  for  this  can  be  found  in  my  work  on  Mschatta,  in 
another  on  the  miniature  painting  of  Lower  Armenia,2'2  and  above  all  in  the 
stucco  decoration  in  the  mosques  at  Cairo 23  brought  there  from  Persia  by  the 
Tulunids,  the  Fatimids  and  the  Ayyubids.  I  merely  make  use  here  of  the 
Mihrab,  which  repeats  the  type  well,  in  order  to  shew  the  reader  the 
further  development  of  the  shell-niche  on  the  ancient  soil  of  Mesopotamia, 
whence  it  probably  had  also  made  its  way  into  the  ancient  architecture  of 
Asia  Minor  and  of  Syria.  There  is  the  original  home  of  the  brick  wall  u 
divided  on  the  outside  by  flat,  on  the  inside  by  rounded  niches.  This  style 
of  wall  construction,  translated  into  stone,  first  makes  its  appearance  in 
the  great  temple  buildings  and  Nymphaea  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  It  is 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  group  of  sarcophagi  which  developed  this  motive 
as  its  type  belongs  also  to  this  group. 

It  has  never  yet  been  noticed  at  all  that  the  key  to  the  explanation  of 
how  and  where  this  style  of  sarcophagi  could  have  developed  is  supplied  by 
the  Christian  ivory  carvings.  At  a  time  when  the  foundations  of  the  study 
of  Christian  antiquities  is  about  to  be  laid,  unfortunately  on  a  philological 
basis,25  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  shew  what  very  surprising  disclosures  plastic 
art  alone  can  lead  to  in  this  direction.  It  is  significant  of  the  methods  of 
classical  archaeology  that  it  has  got  into  this  channel,  not  with  the  help  of 
my  labours,  but  just  now  in  the  footsteps  of  Literature.  It  still  clings  more 
than  one  would  think  to  letters  instead  of  opening  its  eyes  to  the  forms  and 
figures  of  painting  and  sculpture. 

Fig.  12  shews  the  front  of  the  celebrated  throne  of  St.  Maximian  at 
Ravenna,  In  the  centre  stands  John  the  Baptist  in  front  view  ;  the  weight 
of  the  figure  is  on  the  left  leg  and  the  right  is  at  ease.  The  saint  raises  his 
right  hand  to  bless  in  the  Greek  fashion,  and  holds  a  disk  with  the  lamb  in 
his  right.  He  is  flanked  by  two  evangelists  on  each  side,  who  each  turn 
towards  the  central  figure  ;  their  gestures  are  varied,  but  all  carry  their 
symbol,  a  volume,  which  they  hold  in  their  left  arm.  Examine  closely  the 
motives  of  the  splendid  drapery,  which  are  varied  in  each  figure,  and  the 
richness  of  the  folds  with  their  individual  arrangement,  and  you  will  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  these  five  figures  disposed  round  a  central  figure  are  in 

21  Wiistenfeld,  Oeschichte  dcr  Koptcn,  p.  SO,  -3  On  this  point  sec  Franz  Pasha,  Cairo. 

13.  4.  '-4  Strzygowaki,  KUinasien  ein  Keuland  dcr 

'-'-  System,  alphab.  Hauptkatalog der K.  Unic.       Kunstgcschichtc,  p.  38. 
Bibl.   -.«   Tubingen,  xiii.    '  Yerzeichnis  der  ar-  Von  Sybel,  Christliche  Anlike,  1906. 

in.  nischen  Handschriften,'  Tubingen,  1907. 

I    2 


attitude  and  drapery  really  nothing  but  the  longer  side  of  one  of  our  Asia 
Minor  sarcophagi  (cf.  Fig.  5).  It  is  true  that  in  place  of  the  monolithic 
stonework  which  permitted  the  architecture  to  form  a  continuous  frame  round 
the  figures,  the  subtle  technique  of  incrustation  has  been  introduced  into 
ivory  carving,  and  to  suit  this  technique  three  rectangular  frames  are  joined 
together.  Between  these,  however,  narrow  pieces  are  inserted  just  as  in  our 
sarcophagi.  And  hand  in  hand  with  the  introduction  of  framework  came 
another  innovation.  The  niche  architecture  on  the  sarcophagi,  with  its 
projecting  entablature,  had  brought   about   as  a  necessary  consequence  that 


Tiiuone  of  St.  Maximian,  Ravenna. 

figures  in  niches  should  alternate  with  those  which  stand  in  front  of  the 
straight  architrave  connecting  the  niches.  The  ivory  carver  composed  panel 
by  panel,  and  therefore  executed  the  niche  motive  singly  for  each  figure— but 
yet  he  could  not  emancipate  himself  from  the  customary  arrangement  of 
broad  and  narrow  spaces.  This  scheme,  which  is  inexplicable  for  ivory  carving- 
considered  by  itself,  affords  the  clearest  proof  that  the  sculptor  of  the 
pulpit  of  St.  Maximian  is  closely  connected  with  the  art  of  the  Asia  Minor 



Now  the  throne  of  St.  Maximum,  as  I  have  shewn  elsewhere,26  is  of 
Syrian  origin.  Its  sharply  cut  tendril-work  decoration,  with  dark  interstices, 
points  to  this.  I  thought  of  Antioch  itself  as  the  place  where  it  was  pro- 
duced, and  can  now  support  that  assumption  by  its  relationship  to  the  Asia 
Minor  sarcophagi  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  to  a  monument  which 
will  also  disclose  to  us  most  remarkable  evidence  with  regard  to  the  origin 
of  the  whole  group  and  the  question  of  date.  I  allude  to  the  beautiful  ivory 
diptych  in  the  British  Museum  carved  with  the  figure  of  an  archangel  and 
bearing  the  legend  AEXOY  riAPONTA  KAI  MAOCUN  THN  A°TIAN. 
(Fig.  13.)  The  decoration  in  this  case  leads 
us    to  presume    that    it    is   of    Syrian    origin. 

Place  it  now  beside  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi 

and  the  throne  of  St.  Maximian,  and  we  shall 

find  that  it  has  points  of  contact  with  both. 

The  arrangement  of  a  single  figure  in  a  niche 

containing  a  shell  is  the  same  as  on  the  sarco- 
phagi.    Closely  related  to  the  statues  of  the 

throne  is  the  beautiful  bold  motive  below — the 

roll  drawn  round  the  hips.     There  we  see  one 

end  of  the  mantle  laid  broadly  across  the  body 

to  hide  the  lap.     The  same  trait  occurs  in  the 

two  apostles  who  stand  nearest  to  John  on  the 

pulpit.      The    beardless    apostle    to    the   right 

shews  almost  exactly  the  same  motive  as  the 

archangel ;  in  the  bearded  one  to  the  left,  on 

the  other  hand,  this  mantle  is  drawn  across  the 

body  down  to  the  left  knee.     While  there  is 

no    doubt  that  the   throne    is    later  than   the 

sarcophagus,  whose  scheme  of  composition   it 

evidently   presupposes,  the   archangel    diptych 

exhibits  a  motive  which  has  an  appearance  of 

great  antiquity. 

Look  back  to  the  sarcophagi.     The  figures 

there  stand  between  the  bases  of  the  columns 

on    the   lower    border.      The   arrangement   on 

the  throne  is  more  individual,  because   there 

attention  has  been  paid  to  the  profile-edge  of 

the  three  large  panels.     Now  the  form  of  the 

ground  in  the  London  ivory  diptych   is  quite 

unique.     Between  the  deep  fluted  pedestals  six- 
steps  lead  right  up  to  the  height  of   the  bases    of  the    pillars.      What  did 
the  sculptor  mean  by  this  unsuitable  motive  ?     He  was  thereby  only  getting 
involved  in  contradictions,  for  as  a  sculptor  of  merit,  and  for  the  sake  of  the 
representative  character  of  his  figure,  it  was  important  for  him  to  place  his 

Fig.  13.  — Leaf  ok  Ivory  Piiiwh 
in  the  British  Museum. 

28  Jahrbuch  der  preussiscken  Kunstsammlungen,  1904,  p.  299,  'Mschatta. 


archangel  as  near  as  possible  to  the  surface  of  the  panel,  that  is,  immediately 
in  front  of  the  spectator.  But  the  steps  required  that  the  archangel  should 
appear  on  the  platform  above,  that  is,  standing  in  the  space  far  behind  the 
pillars,  pushed  back,  in  fact,  into  the  room.  Instead  of  that  he  presses  forward 
right  in  front  of  the  shafts  of  the  columns,  and  his  arms  and  even  his  wings 
hide  both  shaft  and  capital.  As  a  consequence  the  lower  part  of  the  body 
would  have  to  be  represented  retreating  towards  the  background.  The  sculptor 
partly  gets  himself  out  of  this  dilemma  in  a  most  naive  manner.  He  cannot 
quite  bring  the  feet  into  the  plane  of  the  composition — the  figure  must 
remain  upon  the  platform — that  is  part  of  his  fixed  idea.  So  he  lets  it  stand 
up  on  the  platform  with  its  heels,  while  the  soles  are  stepping  down  on  three 
steps  at  once.  This  exaggeration  of  the  feet  seems  to  him  preferable  to 
giving  up  the  whole  motive. 

Why  this  stiff-necked  obstinacy  ?  Riegl,  in  characteristic  fashion,  finds 
a  definite  artistic  intention  hidden  in  the  motive.  He  thinks  the  artist 
•'conscientiously  avoided  representing  a  definite  momentary  kind  of  standing 
on  the  steps,  and  endeavoured  rather  to  set  this  act  of  standing  before  the 
eye  of  the  spectator  as  objective  type  and  in  order  to  characterise  the  feet, 
by  means  of  their  upper  surface,  as  giving  the  effect  of  depth.'  27  I  have  often 
enough  taken  my  stand  against  this  sort  of  theorising,  and  may,  I  think,  in 
this  case  declare  for  once  emphatically  how  mistaken  such  well-meant 
explanations  are,  when  they  so  entirely  neglect  historical  facts,  as  Riegl  does 
in  this  instance. 

Precisely  as  the  curious  arrangement  of  the  five  figures  on  the  front  of 
the  throne  of  St.  Maximian  betrays  in  respect  of  the  Asia  Minor  sarcophagi 
an  atavism  manifest  in  certain  inconsistencies,  such  as  the  alternation  of  broad 
and  narrow  fields,  so  here  the  sculptor  of  the  London  ivory  diptych  does  not 
advance  with  a  will  towards  the  discovery  of  new  motives,  but  shews  himself 
retrograde  in  his  weak  adherence  to  traditional  ideas.  The  six  steps  between 
the  pedestals  in  front  leading  to  the  background  of  the  relief  are  not  his 
invention,  but  go  back,  together  with  the  motive  of  the  doorway  to  which  they 
lead,  to  presupposed  facts,  the  demonstration  of  which  must  for  the  time  being 
be  sought  for  at  Pompeii.  Suppose  a  theologian  were  making  researches  in 
the  houses  there  in  order  to  elucidate  the  motive  of  the  steps,  and  came  in 
the  Casa  di  Marco  Lucrezio,  for  example,  to  the  steps  which  lead  up  from  a 
fountain  to  a  statue  standing  in  an  arched  niche,  he  might  well  imagine  that 
the  artist  of  the  ivory  relief,  by  analogy  with  the  cascade  and  its  flight  of  steps, 
had  wished  to  convey  that  the  archangel,  like  the  water  which  we  suppose  to 
flow  down  the  steps,  was  the  bringer  of  life.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Good 
Shepherd  and  Daniel  were  placed  in  this  fashion  by  Constantine  the  Great 

27  Alois  Riegl,  Spatromische  Kunstindustric,  Stehen  iiber  den  Stufen  an  sich,  als  objektiven 

p.   122:   the  artist   'hat  es  geflissentlich  ver-  Typus,  dem  Beschauer  vov  Augeu  zu  fiihren  unci 

mieden,  eine  bestimmte   momentane   Art   des  die   Fiisse   vermittels   der  Obersicht    als    tief- 

Stehens  auf  den  Stufen  darzustellen,  da   sein  ranmerftillend  zu  charakterisieren.' 
Streben    vielmehr   darauf   gerichtet    war,    das 



over  the  fountains  in  the  centre  of  the  squares  of  Constantinople.28  By 
similar  combinations  the  Indian  figure  of  the  boy  on  the  water-mound  on  which 
animals  are  feeding  and  drinking  received  a  Christian  interpretation.20 
Another  might  discover  the  flight  of  six  steps  of  our  relief  in  the  six  steps  that 
lead  up  to  the  temple  of  Isis  at  Pompeii  and  its  vestibule.  As  the  cultus 
image  in  its  day  was  shewn  with  this  architectural  approach,  so  the 
sculptor  (we  might  say)  introduced  his  Christian  archangel,  steps  and  facade 
with  columns  going  back  therefore  to  antique  temples  raised  on  a  podium. 

In  reality  the  key  to  the  origin  of  our  motive  lies  much  further  away 
from  the  path  which  is  usually  followed  in  tracing  the  motives  of  Christian 
art,  and  many  a  Christian  archaeologist 
will  probably  tear  his  hair  out  with 
horror,  when  I  propose  to  prove  that 
the  archangel  in  the  London  relief  has 
been  placed  here  like  a  real  actor  on 
the  stage.  Perhaps  some  may  be  more 
inclined  to  reflect  seriously  on  what  I 
am  about  to  say  when  I  mention  that 
lately  a  theologian  has  tried  to  point 
out,  in  the  Archiv  fur  Rcligionswisscn- 
schaft,  ix.  3G5  f.,  that  the  sculptured 
screen  (the  ikonostasis)  of  the  Ortho- 
dox Church  had  its  origin  in  the  Pro- 
skenion  of  the  ancient  theatre,  and 
that  characteristic  features  of  the 
Liturgy,  such  as  the  elaohoi,  were  none 
other  than  the  acts  of  the  Hellenic 
drama,  so  that  when  we  Westerns 
reproach  the  Orthodox  Church  for  its 
theatrical  services  our  reproach  is  in 
the  truest  sense  justified.  Karl  Holl, 
as  I  shall  point  out,  was  quite  right 
in  making  these  assertions. 

For  the  archangel  on  the  steps  a 
convincing  analogy  is  to  be  found  at 
Pompeii  in  the  wall  paintings  of  the 
fourth  style  only.  There  one  often  sees 
(best  in  the  stucco  decoration  of  a  wall  in  the  Stabian  Thermae  and  in  some 
paintings  in  relief  which  are  now  in  the  Bronze  Rooms  of  the  Naples  Museum) 
figures  between  columns,  represented  standing  in  a  doorway  to  which  steps 
lead  up.  The  annexed  example  is  from  the  so-called  Palaestra  (Reg.  VIII. 
ins.  2,  No.  23),  Fig.  14.30     We  see  between  the  projecting  side  walls  with  their 


11. — Portion  of  Pompeian  "Wall- 

-8  Cf.  Bomiseht  Quarlalschrift,  iv.  102. 
29  Such  groups  in   ivory  are  to  be  found  in 
nearly  all  museums. 

•"    This   illustration    and    the    following    are 

alter  von   L'ulie.   Die  ESmitehe  '  scenae  frons ' 
in   <!■  n  schen    Wandbildern,    Berlin, 




columns  five  steps  and  then  two  more  leading  up  to  the  nude  youth  who 
appears  above  in  the  doorway.  The  sculptor  of  the  London  diptych  also 
imagined  the  side  walls  to  recede  in  a  similar  way.  He  would  otherwise  not 
have  placed  the  archangel's  sceptre  on  the  pedestal  to  the  right,  and  by  thus 
correcting  the  columns  have  moved  them  back  somewhat  into  space.  The 
number  of  the  steps,  which,  as  in  the  Pompeian  picture,  get  smaller  to  the  top, 
also  almost  coincides.  The  fact  is  that  for  such  flights  of  door-steps  in  the 
Campanian  wall  paintings  five  steps  on  an  average  are  used. 

I  do  not  mean  to  assert,  in  quoting  this  analogy,  that  the  ivory  sculptor 
had  actually  copied  a  Pompeian  picture  or  any  antique  painting  at  all.  It  may 
be  fairly  clearly  established  in  this  instance  that  between  Pompeii  and  the 
diptych  there  is  a  third  connecting  link — the  ancient  stage.  This  can  be 
proved  with  the  help  of  those  monuments  which  are  most  closely  allied  to  the 

Fig.  15. — Reconstruction  of  Pompeian  Stage  Facade. 

archangel  relief,  such  as  the  front  of  the  throne  of  St.  Maximian  and  the 
Asia  Minor  sarcophagi.  The  five  figures  side  by  side  are  distinctive  of  them. 
These  figures  are  placed — on  the  throne  and  on  the  sarcophagi — within  and 
between  the  three  pairs  of  columns  which  are  connected  either  by  a  rounded 
arch  or  by  a  pediment  (Fig.  5),  and  which,  as  the  archangel  relief  with  its  steps 
shews,  were  meant  to  indicate  doors.  But  what  are  these  three  doors  united 
into  a  whole  by  a  projecting  entablature  ?  That  is  the  actual  division  of  the 
stage  wall  which  Holl  has  accepted  for  the  ikonostasis  of  the  Greek  Church 
and  which — a  fact  I  have  not  yet  mentioned — Puchstein  has  assumed  to  be 
the  model  for  the  Pompeian  wall  paintings  of  the  fourth  style  mentioned 

Lately  von   Cube,   at   the   suggestion  of  Puchstein,  undertook,  by  con- 
fronting what  is  preserved  of  the  extant  ruins  in  the  theatres  themselves  with 



what  can  be  made  out  clearly  from  the  wall  paintings,  to  reconstruct  these 
stage  walls.  I  give  here  (Fig.  15)  an  example  done  from  the  very  fanciful 
wall  picture  introduced  into  the  upper  part  of  the  architecture  in  the 
triclinium  of  a  Pompeian  house  (Reg.  I.  ins.  3,  No.  25).  We  see  here  the 
three  doors  with  five  steps  each  ;  in  the  centre  the  Aula  regia,  to  the  side 
the  Hospitalia.  They  are  flanked  by  columns  on  pedestals,  and  where  the 
pairs  of  columns  come  close  to  each  other  statues  stand  in  the  narrow  inter- 
space. If  these  are  restored  from  the  originals  or  from  the  ivory  tablet  in 
the  case  of  the  doors  also,  we  shall  have  first  the  wall  painting  itself  (Fig.  16), 
which  is  the  foundation  of  von  Cube's  reconstruction,  and  then  the  long 
facade  of  an  Asia  Minor  sarcophagus  (Fig.  5).  For  it  is  obvious  that  if  we 
reconstruct  the  upper  part  of  this  architecture,  not  entirely  from  the  painting 
as  von  Cube  has  done,  but  according  to  a  reasonable  architectural  point  of 

Fig.  16. — Pompeian  Wall  Painting. 

view,  then  arch  and  pediment  would  come  over  the  doors  and  not  between 
them.  It  will  be  well,  therefore,  when  reconstructing  the  stage  walls  of 
ancient  theatres  in  the  future,  to  take  into  consideration  the  long  sides  of  the 
Asia  Minor  sarcophagi.  But  if  the  question  arises  as  to  where  this  theatre 
architecture  penetrated  into  painting  and  sculpture,  and  if  it  is  urged  that 
this  could  only  happen  in  a  great  city,  then  probably  the  innovation  should 
be  referred  to  Antioch  rather  than  to  Rome.  It  is  from  Antioch  that 
the  fourth  style  of  Pompeian  wall  painting  31  and  the  type  of  the  Asia  Minor 
sarcophagi  came;  from  thence  also,  or  from  one  of  the  islands  lying  off  the 
Syrian  coast  of  Asia  Minor,  come  the  Ravenna  sarcophagi,  which  reproduce 

31  Cf.  Strzygowski,  Gottingiscfie  gelehrte  Ameiuen,  1906,  pp.  910  f. 


the  type  of  the  theatre  facade  in  its  latest  phase,  posterior  to  the  throne  of 
St.  Maximian — the  type,  namely,  with  the  five  arcades  of  perfectly  even 
Avidth.  Finally,  from  Antioch  comes  also  the  ivory  throne  itself  and  the 
archangel  diptych  in  the  British  Museum,  in  which  the  motive  of  the  theatre 
steps  has  been  so  strikingly  preserved.  Just  as  in  Japan  there  were  times 
when  painting  and  sculpture  remained  entirely  under  the  influence  of  the 
theatre,  so  also  in  ancient  art.  It  appears  that  this  was  the  case  at  Antioch. 
We  find  the  fashion  had  penetrated  to  Italy  with  the  fourth  style  in  the  time 
of  Nero.  In  the  period  of  the  Antonines  it  dominates  sarcophagus  sculpture 
in  the  central  district  of  the  eastern  Mediterranean ;  in  the  archangel  relief, 
the  Ravenna  throne,  and  the  Christ  relief  at  Berlin  it  encroaches  on 
Christian  art,  and  is  destined  afterwards  to  celebrate  its  final  triumph  in  the 
Ravenna  sarcophagi  and  to  live  on  unrecognised  up  to  the  present  day  in  the 
ikonostasis  of  the  Greek  Church. 

To  conclude,  I  return  again  to  the  Richmond  fragments.  They  belong 
in  every  particular,  in  the  decoration  executed  with  the  borer,  and  in  the 
beauty  of  form  of  the  statues  and  the  strict  adherence  to  the  architecture  of 
the  theatre  wall,  to  the  best  specimens  we  possess  of  the  Asia  Minor  school 
of  sculpture  which  had  its  starting  point  in  Antioch.  Whether  these 
sarcophagi  were  produced  at  Tarsus,  as  Sir  William  Ramsay32  thinks,  or 
whether,  as  I  supposed,  the  marble  points  to  the  Prokonnesos 33  (therefore  to 
the  ancient  Cyzicus),  and  whether  the  Richmond  fragments  come,  as 
Th.  Reinach  3i  concluded  in  the  case  of  the  Sidamara  sarcophagus,  from  the 
mountains  north  of  the  Taurus,  or — as  the  export  of  Greek  marble  sarcophagi 
to  Ravenna  led  me  to  suppose — from  one  of  the  islands  lying  off  the  coast  of 
Asia  Minor,  are  points  the  decision  of  which  is  reserved  to  the  researches  of 
the  future. 

The  sample  sent  to  me  by  Mrs.  Strong  shews  that  the  marble  of  the 
Richmond  sarcophagus  comes  from  Greek  quarries.  It  is  grey  in  colour  and 
crystalline  throughout.  I  also  have  samples  of  the  sarcophagi  from 
Selefkeh  in  Constantinople,  of  the  Christ-relief  in  Berlin,  of  one  of  the 
sarcophagus  fragments  in  the  Louvre,  and  of  the  sarcophagus  in  the  Colonna 
garden.  The  last  two  shew  pure  white  crystals.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Richmond  sample  comes  near  in  its  grey  colour  to  the  examples  from 
Selefkeh  and  the  Christ-relief  from  Constantinople  in  Berlin. 

Josef  Strzygowski. 

(Translated  from  the  author's  MS.   by  Mrs.  Arthur  S'rong.) 

32  Revue  des  fitudes  ancienncs,  1901,  p.  358  ;  33  Orient  odcr  Bom,  p.  54. 

Studies  in  the  History  of  the  Eastern  Provinces,  3i  Monuments  Piot,  ix.  p.  7. 

p.  60. 


Mr.  Fotheringham's  paper,  if  I  understand  it  rightly,  divides  itself 
into  three  parts.  He  corrects  certain  errors  in  my  tabular  statement  of 
the  evidence,  and  in  my  commentary  on  it;  he  criticizes  my  suggestion 
that  the  'List  of  Thalassocracies '  may  represent  a  fifth -century  docu- 
ment; and  he  reconstructs  from  materials  comprised  wholly  in  the  existing 
texts  of  Eusebius'  work  an  outline  of  the  Eusebian  view  of  the  'List,' 
as  he  understands  it;  the  gist  of  which  is  that  he  thinks  that  Eusebius 
not  merely  incorporated  in  his  Canoncs  the  names  of  all  the  states  contained  in 
the  '  List,'  but  also  intended  to  space  the  thalassocracies  according  to  the 
numerals  contained  in  the  Excerpt.  From  this  he  infers  that,  where  the 
numerals  in  the  Excerpt  are  lost,  they  may  safely  be  restored  from  the 
intervals  indicated  in  the  Canoncs  ;  and  from  this,  finally,  (1)  that  the  Excerpt 
was  not  mutilated  when  Eusebius  incorporated  it  in  his  Chronographia, 
and  (2)  that  it  represented,  in  its  missing  section  at  all  events,  the  same 
chronological  scheme  as  underlies  the  rest  of  Eusebius'  work,  and  not, 
as  I  had  been  led  to  suggest,  a  different,  earlier,  and  more  accurate 

With  the  permission  of  the  editors  of  the  Journal,  I  submit  a  brief  note- 
on  each  of  these  points,  in  the  order  indicated  above. 

(1)  Sundry  errors  of  transcription  and  reckoning. 

I  hope  that  my  use  of  the  word  'Eusebius'  to  denote  'the  Armenian 
version  of  the  Chronici  Canoncs '  and  of  the  word  '  Chronicon '  for  the 
'  Chro7wgrapMa'  has  not  inconvenienced  anyone  besides  Mr.  Fotheringham  : 
still  more  that  he  has  not  been  misled  already  by  the  occurrence  of  the  words 
Chronicorum  Liber  I.  instead  of  Chronographia  at  the  top  of  p.  226  in  Sehoene's 
edition,  on  which  the  Excerpt  from  Diodorus  is  printed. 

In  the  matter  of  the  relative  value  of  the  Armenian  version  and  Jerome's 
version  of  the  Canoncs,  I  should  gladly  bow  to  Mr.  Fotheringham's  great 
knowledge  of  the  Eusebian  texts,  were  it  not  that  on  Mr.  Fotheringham's 
own  showing,  Jerome's  version  is  more  erratic  in  its  support  of  Mr.  Fother- 
ingham's theory  than  even  the  Armenian  version  is,  and  requires  even 
more  ruthless  emendation  before  it  can  be  taken  to  represent  a  text 
of  the  Canoncs  which  shows  signs  of  having  utilized  the  numerals  of  the 

124  JOHN  L.  MYRES 

For  Mr.  Fotkeringham's  correction  of  my  errors  of  addition  and 
subtraction  in  columns  H  and  J,  I  have  to  thank  him  very  heartily;  and 
I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  agree  with  him  that  they  do  not  affect  my  argument. 
In  columns  E  and  G,  I  have  copied  the  wrong  numeral  between 
places  XV  and  XVI ;  and  the  corresponding  correction  which  must  be 
made  in  my  article,  on  p.  92,  1.  9,  invalidates  the  argument  contained  in 
11.  9-11. 

The  numeral  45,  which  I  attributed  to  the  Phoenicians  in  column  F, 
rests,  as  Mr.  Fotheringham  says,  on  one  manuscript  only  ;  but  it  is  defended 
by  Mr.  Fotheringham  himself  as  a  genuine  piece  of  the  Eusebian  text.  The 
only  difference  between  us,  if  I  understand  his  criticism  rightly,  is  that 
he  does  not  think  that  its  preservation  in  MS.  '  F  '  is  sufficient  to  assign  it  to 
Jerome's  version  of  that  text. 

Meanwhile  I  am  glad  to  find  that  Mr.  Fotheringham's  experience 
of  MS. '  F '  of  Jerome  leads  him  to  prefer  32  to  23  as  the  Eusebian  numeral  of 
the  Cypriotes  in  place  VI :  for  in  the  event  of  my  interpretation  of  places 
VI- VIII  being  upheld  (pp.  121  and  122  n.)  the  date  742  B.C.  has  several 
advantages  over  732  B.C.  It  has,  however,  of  course,  the  superficial 
disadvantage  of  having  approximately  the  duration  of  a  conventional 
'  generation  of  men.' 

The  errors  which  Mr.  Fotheringham  has  discovered  in  my  summary 
of  the  evidence  of  Syncellus,  in  column  D,  are  more  serious.  After  some 
trouble,  I  have  discovered  how  I  came  to  make  them,  but  that  concerns 
no  one  but  myself,  and  does  not  mitigate  the  blunder.  I  have  accordingly 
to  cancel  the  sentence  on  p.  90,  11.  10-12  of  my  commentary  on  column  D, 
and  to  substitute  the  words  '  But  in  places  VI -XI  inclusive,  and  in  place 
XIII,  he  omits  both  the  names  and  the  numerals.'  I  must  also  cancel 
the  statement  on  p.  127  that  'Syncellus  is  silent'  as  to  the  duration  of 
the  seapower  of  Lydia  :  also  on  p.  92,  1.  17,  for'  like'  should  be  read 
'  unlike.'  But  the  other  references  to  Syncellus  in  my  article  are,  I  believe, 

I  have  also,  obviously,  to  modify  my  inference  that  Syncellus  was  using 
the  Chrono gravida  rather  than  the  Canones;  and  to  lay  less  stress  on  my 
suggestion  that  the  text  of  Diodorus  was  already  mutilated  when  it  came  to 
the  knowledge  of  Eusebius.  My  argument,  however,  from  the  misreading 
preserved  by  Pliny  (p.  105)  remains  untouched;  and  the  question  in  what 
way  the  missing  numerals  are  to  be  supplied  is  not  affected  one  way  or  the 

But  while  admitting  that  Mr.  Fotheringham  has  made  out  a  strong  case 
against  my  suggestion  (p.  92,  n.  21)  that  Syncellus  was  relying  on  the 
Chronographia  rather  than  on  the  Canones,  I  do  not  see  that  his  conclusion 
follows  necessarily ;  at  all  events  it  does  not  preclude  the  idea  that  Syncellus 
had  the  Chronograpihia  as  well  as  Canones  before  him,  and  was  in  fact  using 
both.  If  his  copy  of  the  Canones  had  contained  a  mention  of  the  Naxians,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  why  he  should  have  made  his  mistake  of  ten  years  in  regard 
to  the  Lacedaemonian  seapower;  and  in  face  of  this  mistake,  it  is  difficult  to 


aigue  that  Syncellus'  copy  of  the  Canones  inentioned  the  Naxians  at  a  point 
where  all  known  versions  of  the  Canones  omit  them.  On  the  other  hand  the 
circumstance  that,  lower  down,  Syncellus  does  mention  the  Naxians,  and 
gives  them  their  proper  numeral  10,  seems  to  me  to  suggest  that  at  this 
point  at  least  he  is  using  the  Chronographia,  at  all  events  as  a  supplementary 

The  only  reason  why  this  question,  whether  Syncellus  had  access  to  the 
Chronographia  or  not,  was  worth  further  discussion,  is  this.  It  is  only  by  the 
assumption  that  Syncellus  used  the  Canones  exclusively,  that  Mr.  Fothering- 
ham  is  able  to  make  good  his  generalization  that  '  each  thalassocracy  is 
found  in  at  least  one  of  the  three  documents  from  which  the  Eusebian  text 
must  be  reconstituted.'  This  assumption  of  course  he  can  only  demonstrate 
by  showing  that  Syncellus  was  not  indebted,  on  any  given  occasion,  to  any 
other  source  such  as  the  Chronographia.  But  the  considerations  which  I  have 
stated  seem  to  show  not  merely  that  Syncellus  had  access  to  the  Chronographia 
but  also  that  his  copy  of  the  Canones  credited  the  ten  Naxian  years  to  the 
Lacedaemonians  and  consequently  did  not  contain  the  name  of  the  Naxians  at 
the  point  where  he  puts  them  :  and  if  this  was  so  the  Naxians  would  seem  to 
offer  a  clear  case  of  a  thalassocrat  state  which  was  not  mentioned  in  any  of 
the  three  documents  in  question. 

(2)  The  List  in  the  Excerpt,  and  the  Thalassocracies  of  Thucydidcs. 

I  do  not  quite  understand  what  points  Mr.  Fotheringham  means  to 
indicate  in  reply  to  my  suggestion  of  a  fifth-century  date  for  the  list,  as 
showing  that  the  retrospect  of  seapower  given  by  Thucydides  disagrees  with 
the  evidence  of  the  list.  Thucydides  does  not  as  a  matter  of  fact  give  any 
'  dates '  at  all ;  and  the  circumstance  that  at  a  time  which  Eusebius  (not 
Thucydides,  nor  Herodotus,  nor  any  early  writer)  dates  as  falling  within  a 
'  Carian '  seapower,  a  Corinthian  built  ships  for  Sauios,  would  only  prove 
anything,  if  Mr.  Fotheringham  were  prepared  to  maintain  that  during  a 
*  Carian'  seapower  neither  Corinth  nor  Samos  was  allowed  to  have  ships  at 
all.  To  admit  the  existence  of  an  'Ionian'  seapower  '  later'  than  the  genera- 
tion of  Ameinocles  does  not  seem  necessarily  to  exclude  an  earlier  one;  if 
only  because  there  was  more  than  one  state  in  '  Ionia.'  Moreover  the  very 
circumstance  that  Thucydides,  when  he  exceeds  the  data  of  the  Excerpt,  does 
so  only  by  including  Western  seapowers,  goes  far  to  explain  both  the  omission 
of  such  a  state  as  Corinth  from  the  List,  and  also  the  preponderance  of 
Levantine  states  in  it.  The  List  is  clearly  a  sequence  of  Eastern  Mediterran- 
ean seapowers:  and  consequently  not  only  Corinth  but  Corcyra.  Cumae, 
Syracuse,  and  Tarenturn,  as  well  as  the  Carthaginians  and  Tyrrhenians,  are 
absent  naturally.  The  reported  'seapower  of  Sinope'  is  another  case  in  point, 
for  Pontus  is  excluded  likewise.  Also  if  the  List  were  really  a  document  of 
the  period  ( if  the  Delian  League,  and  compiled  under  its  influence,  as  1  have 
suggested,  no  'tendency'  would  be  more  natural  than  disparagement  of  the 
seapower  of  Corinth  :  a  motive  too  which  would  have  no  obvious  explanation 
except  under  fifth-century  circumstanc  - 

126  JOHN  L.  MYRES 

The  West,  in  early  Greece,  as  in  Thucy elides'  own  time,  was  a  kind  of 
'  high  seas,'  common  to  all.  Even  in  445  B.C.,  the  very  treaty  which  recog- 
nized formally  the  existence  of  Leagues,  which  in  the  Aegean  and  on  its 
shores  were  practically  inclusive,  left  an  open  field  in  the  West,  where  Athens 
and  her  rivals  might  compete  freely  for  adherents.  In  Greek  thought,  the 
first  '  thalassocrat '  in  the  West  was  probably  Dionysius  of  Syracuse. 

(3)  The  Eusebian  '  Canones  '  as  material  for  the  restoration  of  the  List  in 
the  Excerpt. 

Mr.  Fotheringham's  ingenious  reconstruction  of  the  text  of  the  Eusebian 
Canones,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned  with  the  thalassocracies,  is  a  definite 
and  valuable  contribution  to  the  study  of  the  Eusebian  text ;  and  clears  up 
many  points  which  are  obscure  to  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  its  history. 
His  object  clearly  is  to  show  that,  even  in  the  present  unhappy  state  of  the 
Canones,  enough  similarity  remains  between  their  allusions  to  thalassocracies 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  names  and  numerals  preserved  in  the  Excerpt  on  the 
other,  to  justify  the  hypothesis  that  where  the  numerals  are  lost  in  the 
Excerpt  they  can  be  restored  from  the  allusions  in  the  Canones ;  that  conse- 
quently there  is  no  need  to  go  outside  the  Eusebian  text  for  materials  for 
such  a  restoration  as  I  have  attempted ;  and  that  the  List  as  restored  by  Mr. 
Fotheringham's  method  agrees  with  the  Eusebian  chronology,  instead  of  sup- 
plying materials,  as  I  had  suggested,  for  its  correction. 

A  question  of  method  confronts  us  here  at  once.  To  reconstruct  the 
text  of  the  Canones  on  the  hypothesis  that  its  true  intervals  would  be  repre- 
sented by  the  numerals  of  the  Excerpt,  and  then  to  reconstruct  the  Excerpt 
on  the  hypothesis  that  the  lost  numerals  would  be  represented  by  the 
intervals  in  the  Canones,  seems  to  me  to  be  an  argument  in  a  circle. 

On  Mr.  Fotheringham's  own  showing,  aberrations  of  a  year  or  two  must 
be  assumed  to  exist  in  the  Eusebian  dates  almost  throughout ;  and  he  makes 
out  a  good  case  for  textual  aberrations  of  as  much  as  ten  years.  Two  points 
therefore  arise.  First,  how,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  clue  as  is  afforded  by 
the  Excerpt  in  the  Chronographia,  would  it  be  possible  even  for  Mr. 
Fotheringham  to  divine  whether  he  ought  to  allow,  in  the  case  of  any 
given  event,  for  a  rise  of  as  much  as  ten  years,  or  for  a  fall  of  a  similar 
amount  ?  With  the  clue  at  hand,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  suggest  how 
this  or  that  textual  obstacle  may  have  produced  the  actual  discrepancy ;  but 
what  evidence  is  there  even  for  the  existence  of  a  discrepancy,  in  the  cases 
where  the  Excerpt  is  defective  ? 

My  meaning  will  perhaps  be  clearer  if  we  take  an  actual  instance.  That 
Eusebius  had  some  reason  for  putting  down  events  at  the  point  where  they 
occurred,  in  the  original  text  of  his  Canones,  is  in  any  case  probable.  That  he 
should  have  thought  that  there  was  an  Egyptian  thalassocracy  from  796  B.C. 
to  753  B.C.,  as  Mr.  Fotheringham  suggests,  is  also  probable,  both  for  the 
reasons  which  Mr.  Fotheringham  gives,  and  for  those  which  were  given  long 
ago  by  Dr.  Goodwin  from  non-Eusebian  evidence  as  to  Hellenic  ideas  about 
Egypt.     But  nothing  of  this  seems  to  me  to  prove  anything  as  to  the  lost 


Egyptian  numeral  in  the  Excerpt ;  and  unless  it  is  possible  to  show  that  the 
lost  numeral  agreed  with  Eusebius'  calculation  of  the  reign  of  Bocchoris,  my 
suggestion  that  Eusebius  either  neglected,  or  did  not  know,  the  lost  numeral, 
remains  unanswered.  On  the  other  hand,  even  if  it  were  possible  to  show 
that  the  Eusebian  date  for  the  Egyptian  thalassocracy  was  based  upon  the 
lost  numeral  in  the  Excerpt,  and  that  this  numeral  was  43,  as  Mr. 
Fotheringham  conjectures,  all  that  would  be  proved  would  be  that  in 
regard  to  Egypt  the  compiler  of  the  List  was  working  on  some  lost 
Greek  tradition  about  Egypt:  nothing  would  have  been  gained  either  in 
proof,  or  in  disproof,  of  my  suggestion  that  the  numerals  in  places  VI-VII 
correspond  with  certain  actual  sequences  in  Oriental  history.  Meanwhile, 
even  the  consistency  of  the  Eusebian  data  can  only  be  tested  in  cases 
where  there  is  something  to  compare  ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  lost  numerals 
this  something  does  not  exist. 

It  was  not,  however,  the  consistency  of  the  Eusebian  data  with  them- 
selves that  I  was  mainly  concerned  to  discuss  in  my  article  ;  but  rather  the 
accuracy,  or  the  veracity,  of  the  Eusebian  chronology  in  general,  when  com- 
pared with  that  fragment  of  pre-Eusebian  chronology— whatever  its  date — 
which  is  preserved  in  our  mutilated  '  List.'  When  every  numeral  in  a  series 
of  seventeen  items  is  liable  even  at  the  hands  of  its  defenders  to  ruthless 
conjectural  revision;  when  the  limits  of  such  revision  range  in  individual 
instances  from  as  little  as  two  to  as  much  as  ten  years;  when  the  effect  of 
these  errors  is  cumulative  as  we  recede  from  the  starting-point,  and  when  the 
starting-point  of  the  list  itself  is  admittedly  five  years  wrong,  it  is  per- 
missible to  doubt  whether  there  can  be  any  very  positive  evidence  that 
the  original  Eusebian  dates  conformed  at  all  closely  to  the  numerals  of 
the  Excerpt  or  even  that  the  general  spacing  of  the  Thalassocracies  in  the 
Ganones  stands  in  any  very  close  relation  to  whatever  chronological  scheme 
the  Excerpt  may  have  embodied  when  it  was  entire. 

That  the  thalassocracy-entries  in  the  Canoncs  formed  a  separate  system 
by  themselves  is  of  course  proved  directly  by  the  existence  of  the  Excerpt, 
and  is  independent  of  any  considerations  derived  from  the  use  of  red  or  black 
ink.  What  even  Jerome  meant  by  the  use  of  red  or  black  ink  is  far  from 
clear;  and  what  Eusebius  meant  by  those  features  in  his  Canoncs,  which 
suggested  the  use  of  red  or  black  ink  to  Jerome,  is  obscurer  still.  Least  of  all 
is  it  clear  from  Mr.  Fotheringham's  discussion,  or  from  any  other  sources  with 
which  I  am  acquainted,  whether  it  was  the  Thalassocracy  list  which  (with 
other  such  lists)  formed  the  groundwork  of  chronology  upon  which  the  other 
events  were  spread  about  in  their  probable  order,  or  whether  the  thalassocracy- 
entries  (whether  made  in  the  margin  or  interpolated)  represented  rather  a 
late  phase  of  the  compilation,  and  only  found  place  in  it  at  all,  when  the 
other  Eusebian  data  had  begun  to  give  cumulative  proof  that  any  given  state 
could  only  be  credited  with  seapower  between  such  and  such  dates.  If  the 
former  theory  be  accepted,  then  either  Eusebius  did  his  work  very  badly,  or 
his  text  needs  re-writing,  in  the  way  Mr.  Fotheringham  has  proposed,  till  it 
conforms  to  the  data  of  which  it  is  compounded;   if  the  latter,  it  is  a  matter 

128  JOHN  L.   MYRES 

of  indifference  what  the  text  of  the  Canones  may  have  contained,  for  ex 
hypotkesi  the  numerals  of  the  Excerpt  were  only  retained  when  they 
happened  to  fit  the  Eusebian  theory  of  history. 

As  to  the  Armenian  version,  meanwhile,  Mr.  Fotheringham  is  brought 
to  the  same  conclusion  as  myself,  that  whatever  the  system  may  have  been 
which  these  entries  were  intended  to  embody,  they  are  scattered  about  in  a 
manner  which  he  rightly  attributes  to  the  '  general  confusion  of  the 
chronology  of  this  version.' 

As  Mr.  Fotheringham's  argument  for  the  consistency  of  the  Eusebian 
data  has  led  him  to  discuss  certain  other  Eusebian  allusions  to  states  which 
had  seapower,  I  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  illustrate  from  these  allusions 
the  discrepancy  between  Eusebian  chronology  in  general  and  our  present 
knowledge  either  of  fifth-century  Greek  chronology,  or  of  the  actual  course  of 
events  as  determined  from  non-Hellenic  evidence  either  documentary  or 
archaeological.  By  way  of  preface,  note  only  that  Mr.  Fotheringham's  argu- 
ment, being  confined  (with  one  exception l)  to  Eusebian  data,  cannot  lead  to 
any  conclusion  as  to  the  veracity  of  Eusebius,  but  only  as  to  his  consistency ; 
whereas  my  own  object  has  been  throughout  to  test  by  nou-Eusebian  evidence 
the  respective  veracity  of  the  Excerpt  and  of  the  Canones.. 

Mr.  Fotheringham's  instances  refer  only  to  four  thalassocracies  (besides 
Egypt)  in  or  above  the  damaged  part  of  the  List — viz.  to  those  of  Caria, 
Miletus,  Phoenicia,  and  Thrace. 

(«)  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Carian  mercenaries  in  the  service  of 
Psammetichus,  who  did  not  begin  to  reign  till  664  B.C.,  could  be  connected, 
as  Mr.  Fotheringham  suggests,  with  a  Carian  seapower  which  began  in 
735  B.C.  and  was  over  by  674  B.C.,  unless  we  are  to  assume  that  we  have 
here  also  one  of  those  ingenious  derangements  of  the  entries  by  at  least 
ten  years. 

(b)  In  the  case  of  Miletus,  the  more  Milesian  events  Eusebius  puts  into 
the  neighbourhood  of  his  Milesian  seapower  (748-730  B.C.)  the  worse  for  his 
reputation  as  a  historian.  His  date  for  Naukratis  (748  B.C.)  is  as  utterly  out 
of  accord  with  fifth-century  tradition 2  as  it  is  with  the  archaeological  evi- 
dence as  to  the  earliest  occupation  of  Naukratis,  and  with  the  other 
Egyptian  evidence  as  to  Bocchoris  and  the  improbability  of  an  Egyptian 
seapower  earlier  than  664  B.C.  Similarly,  a  chronologer  who,  in  face  of 
Hdt.  i.  74,  was  capable  of  putting  Thales  into  the  year  747  B.C.,  was  capable 
of  any  imaginable  muddle.  Except  from  these  late  chronologers,  we  do  not 
know  much  about  the  foundation-dates  of  Milesian  colonies  like  Trapezus  (or 
was  it  Cyzicus,  as  Jerome  says  ?),  which  the  Canones  assign  to  756  B.C. ;  and 
we  know  even  less  about  the  way  in  which  the  chronologers  fixed  these 
dates.    Mr.  Fotheringham  seems  to  incline 3  to  the  view  that  the  Thalassocracy- 

1  The    '  Tyrian '    date  for  Cartilage,  quoted       cance  of  red  ink  (p.  81)  with  his  treatment  of 
from  Josephus,  e.  yip.  i.  17,  18.  the  Pelasgic  thalassocracy  (p.  S3),  which  seems 

Hdt.  ii.  178.  to  proceed  on  the  opposite  hypothesis. 

Bui  compare   his  discussion  of  the  signifi- 


list  formed  part  of  the  framework  of  the  Canoncs ;  and  if  so,  it  would  follow 
that  the  other  dates  were  accommodated  to  it.  But  if  so,  these  other  dates  are 
useless  to  determine  the  Eusebian  view  as  to  the  proper  place  for  the  Milesian 
seapower — i.e.  to  show  the  extent  of  the  interval,  if  any,  which  separates 
it  from  that  of  Phocaea  below  the  gap  in  the  list. 

One  point  more,  in  regard  to  the  foundation  of  Trapezus.  If,  as  seems 
admitted,  the  foundation  of  Phocaean  Massilia  in  COO  B.C.  falls  outside  the 
period  of  Phocaean  seapower,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Fotheringham's 
argument  as  to  the  connexion  of  Trapezus,  if  founded  in  755  B.C.,  with  a 
seapower  of  Miletus  which  did  not  begin  till  748  B.C.?  It  is  the  case  of  the 
Carians  of  Psammetichus  over  again. 

(c)  The  same  criticism  applies  to  the  references  to  Phoenician 
seapower.  To  argue  from  a  date  for  Solomon's  Hiram  to  a  date  for  Dido's 
Pygmalion  is  surely  to  confuse  history  and  mythology.  In  any  case,  if  I 
understand  Mr.  Fotheringham  correctly,  the  Eusebian  date  for  the  Phoenician 
seapower  has  been  adjusted  to  Josephus'  'Tynan'  date  for  Pygmalion,  on  the 
hypothesis  that  it  was  in  the  days  of  Pygmalion  that  Carthage  was  founded.4 
But  who  started  this  hypothesis  ?  There  is  nothing,  so  far  as  I  know,  to 
support  it  in  any  Greek  author  before  Alexandrian  times,  or  in  any  extant 
non-Hellenic  author,  and  it  disagrees  by  something  like  two  centuries  with 
everything  that  is  known,  from  the  examination  of  Punic  sites  in  Africa, 
Sardinia,  or  Sicily,  as  to  the  upward  date  of  Punic  adventure  in  those  lands. 
The  date,  on  the  other  hand,  which  I  have  proposed,  on  the  clue  furnished  by 
the  List,  by  the  limiting  dates  for  Egypt,  and  by  the  Assyrian  record,  fits  all 
this  archaeological  evidence  without  difficulty,  and  disagrees  merely  with 
post- Alexandrian  chronographers. 

(d)  The  Thracian  conquest  of  Bebrycia  illustrates,  once  more,  the 
uselessness  of  a  chronological  enquiry  which  does  not  go  outside  the 
chronologer's  materials.  Was  the  conquest  of  Bebrycia  put  down  under 
972  B.C.,  because  this  date  fell  within  the  Eusebian  limits  for  Thracian  sea- 
power, or  were  the  limits  of  Thracian  seapower  adjusted  to  include  the 
Eusebian  date  for  the  conquest  of  Bebrycia?  To  argue  from  Eusebian  data 
alone  is  either  to  reach  no  conclusion  or  to  argue  in  a  circle. 

To  his  mention  of  Trapezus  already  noted,  Mr.  Fotheringham  adds  that 
'  with  the  accuracy '  of  this  chronological  system  '  we  are  not  concerned.' 
But  it  is  precisely  its  accuracy,  which,  from  the  standpoint  of  my  article, 
we  are  discussing.  My  whole  contention  is,  in  fact,  that  we  know  enough.  1  -\- 
this  time,  from  Egyptian  and  other  non-Hellenistic  sources,  to  be  able  to 
assert  that  neither  Eusebius,  nor  Trogus,  nor  any  other  Hellenistic  or 
Graeco-Roman  chronologer  knew  anything  of  value  about  such  matters  as  the 
foundation  of  Trapezus,  excepl  in  so  far  as  he  used  at  least  a  fifth- century 
source:  that    between  the  filth  century  and  Alexandrian  times  a  thorough 

4  Note  meanwhile  that  we  have  been  dealing  (Jerome  1015  b.c.  Ann.)  and  B{  rome  : 

here  with  only  one  cut  of  a  number  of  dates  850  B.c.  Arm.):  and  that  the  date  for  whicb 

tV>r  tlir   foundation  of  Carthage,  ranging  from  Mr.  Fotheringham  cites  Josephus  doi 

1042  b.i  .  (Jerome  :  1038  b.i  .  Aim.  |  to  1018  b.o.  to  appear  in  the  I '  it  all. 

H.S. — VOL.  XXVII.  K 


obscuration  of  tradition  took  place ;  and  that  it  is  only  by  going  back  either 
to  fifth-century  historians,  or  to  quite  non-Hellenic  data,  that  we  can  hope 
to  re-construct  the  early  history  of  Greece.  Whether  the  Excerpt  from 
Diodorus  seems,  or  not,  to  preserve  an  echo  of  this  earlier  Hellenic  tradition 
is  consequently  a  matter  on  which  Eusebian  evidence  proves  inevitably 
nothing;  especially  if  it  be  proved,  as  Mr.  Fotheringham  contends,  to  be 
based  itself  upon  that  Excerpt. 

If  I  were  to  attempt,  in  fact,  to  fix  my  position,  on  the  whole  question,  in 
a  phrase,  in  face  of  Mr.  Fotheringham's  criticisms,  I  should  do  so  best, 
I  think,  by  a  re-arrangement  of  his  own  peroration.  '  Inquiries  into  its 
value,'  I  should  say  of  the  Eusebian  List,  '  are  bound  to  be  fruitless,  unless  the 
restoration  of  the  list  is  regarded  as  a  matter  of  historical  explanation,, 
independent  of  the  problem  of  textual  criticism.' 

John  L.  Myres. 


Homer  and   His  Age.    By  Andrew   Lang.    Illustrated.     Pp.  xii+336.     Loudon  : 
Longmans,  190C.     12s.  6d.  net. 

Mr.  Lang  here  returns  to  contentions  advanced  some  years  ago  in  Homer  and  the  Epic. 
His  stimulus  appears  to  have  been  supplied  by  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Leafs  Iliad  in  190?  ; 
and  now  he  once  more  goes  full  tilt  at  the  Separatists,  asserting  that  these  are  much  more 
discrepant  and  inconsistent  in  statement  than  the  Homeric  lays  themselves,  and  criticising 
them  in  the  light  of  more  or  less  recent  archaeology  and  )f  a  'literary  judgment,'  which 
is  fortified  by  a  wide  knowledge  of  early  epic  literature  in  other  languages  than  Greek. 
Briefly  he  sets  out  to  show  that  the  discrepancies  in  Homer  are  not  greater  than  would  be 
made  by  any  one  author  in  an  age  of  vigorous  and  moving  culture  ;  that  the  efforts  made 
to  convict  the  poet  or  poets  of  archaism  fail  ;  that  the  arguments  used  to  prove  archaism 
in  some  passages  or  connexions  and  realism  in  others  are  absurd  ;  and  that  the  lays  do 
represent  very  fairly  a  single  civilisation.  He  sees  no  difficulty,  in  view  of  recent  Cretan 
discoveries,  about  supposing  the  poems  to  have  been  written  down  at  an  early  age — an  age, 
in  fact,  much  earlier  than  the  Cyclic  poets,  not  to  mention  Peisistratus  ;  and  by  the  way  he 
makes  much  of  Mr.  Leaf's  change  of  view  concerning  the  relative  probability  of  a  Homeric 
School  and  of  a  Peisistratean  Recension.  Judging  by  the  ideas  embodied  in  the  Cyclic 
poems,  Mr.  Lang  would  put  the  stereotyping  of  the  Iliad  (with  which  he  is  almost 
exclusively  concerned)  some  way  back  behind  800  B.C.  He  makes  a  good  defence  for  unity 
both  in  authorship  and  time  ;  but  he  seems  to  have  overlooked,  in  advancing  arguments 
from  the  Cyclic  poems,  and  comparing  other  Epics,  one  important  fact,  viz.  that  culture  in 
Ionia  (where  there  is  much  reason  to  place  the  origin  of  the  poems)  had  not  necessarily  the 
same  history  as  in  Greece  ;  and  that  poems  might  have  arisen  at  the  same  time  on  the  two 
sides  of  the  Aegean,  reflecting  incongruous,  but,  in  neither  case,  anachronistic  ideas. 
What  would  have  been  archaistic  iu  Greece  in  the  seventh  century  was  not  necessarily 
archaistic  in  Ionia.  While  regarding  the  Greek  lands  as  endowed  with  too  uniform  a 
civilisation  in  the  post-Mycenaean  Age,  Mr.  Lang  also  seems  to  treat  the  '  Mycenaean  ' 
remains  too  much  as  one,  and  not  to  take  sufficient  account  of  possibly  wide  intervals  in  date 
between,  e.g.  the  later  Palace  at  Cnossus,  the  Enkomi  Treasure,  and  the  '  Treasure  from 
one  of  the  Greek  Islands  '  in  the  British  Museum.  When  an  author  has  to  base  his  argu- 
ments on  the  multifarious  and  often  provisional  statements  of  archaeologists  groping  their 
way  towards  the  light  in  the  dim  ages  before  history,  and  does  not  know  the  Rod',,  a 
himself,  his  foothold  is  often  perilous  in  the  extreme. 

Pour    mieux  connaitre   Homere.     Par  Michel  Breal.     Pp.  viiL+309.     Paris: 

Hachette  et  Cie.     [1907.]     3  f.  50. 

M.  Breal  brings  to  the  study  of  the  Homeric  question  an  acute  mind  trained  in  other 
fields;  and,  as  usual  in  such   cases,  his  contribution  i-    fresh,  original,  and  stimulating. 

K    -1 


He  brushes  aside  the  theory,  which  at  one  time  found  considerable  favour  in  Germany, 
that  the  Homeric  poems,  so  to  speak,  grew  of  themselves,  without  any  particular  author  :  a 
theory  which  only  has  to  be  stated  in  clear  language  to  lose  whatever  plausibility  it  derived 
from  nebulous  circumlocutions.  Nevertheless  he  does  not  assign  them  to  a  single  author. 
His  argument  is  that  they  are  the  product  of  a  highly  developed  civilization,  and  were  written 
by  a  group  of  professional  poets  at  some  wealthy  court  in  Asia  Minor.  Their  supposed 
simplicity  of  manners  is  conventional  archaism  ;  their  language  is  a  mixed  literary  dialect, 
which  drew  elements  from  various  sources.  M.  Breal  finds  the  necessary  conditions 
for  such  productions  in  the  court  of  Lydia  in  the  seventh  century,  and  believes  the  poems 
to  have  been  written  by  a  group  of  Greek  poets,  under  Alyattes  or  Croesus,  for  recitation  at 
the  creat  games.  This  exposition  of  his  views  occupies  only  130  short  pages,  and  is  not 
worked  out  in  detail  ;  but  his  arguments  are  quite  sufficiently  indicated,  and  are  clearly 
and  attractively  expressed.  The  rest  of  the  volume  is  occupied  by  144  short  articles  on 
single  Homeric  words,  on  the  lines  of  Buttmann's  Lexilogus,  but  on  a  smaller  scale. 
It  is  a  book  to  be  recommended  to  Homeric  students,  and  has  the  merit  of  being  very 

Anthologia   Graeca    Epigrammatum   Palatina   cum    Planudea.      Edidit   H.    Stadt- 

mdeller.     Vol.  III.  pars  1,  Palatinae  libri  ix  epp.    1-563,  Planudeae  1.  1   continens. 

Pp.  vi  +  584.     Leipzig  :  Teubner,  1906. 
Select    Epigrams   from   the    Greek    Anthology.    Edited    with    revised    text, 

translation,  introduction,  and  notes,  by  J.  W.  Mackail.     New  edition.     Pp.  xi  +  433. 

London  :  Longmans,  1906.     14s.  net. 
The  same.     Greek  text  only.     Pp.  175.     2s.  net. 

The  satisfaction  with  which  scholars  will  receive  a  new  part  of  Stadtmiiller's  critical  edition 
of  the  Anthology  will  be  seriously  damped  by  regret  at  the  death  of  the  editor  before  the 
completion  of  his  task.  The  present  instalment,  though  of  full  size  to  rank  as  a  volume 
by  itself,  is  described  as  the  first  part  of  vol.  iii,  and  it  appears  before  the  second  part  of 
vol.  ii.  It  is  needless  to  describe  Stadtmiiller's  work,  which  is  indispensable  to  all  serious 
students  of  the  Anthology.  Unfortunately  it  appeared  too  late  to  be  used  by  Prof.  Mackail, 
59  of  whose  selected  500  epigrams  come  from  the  portion  of  book  ix  included  in  the 
present  volume.  Textual  details  are,  however,  the  least  important  part  of  Prof.  Mackail's 
work,  the  appearance  of  which  in  a  new  edition  is  very  welcome,  since  the  original  edition 
(1890)  has  long  been  out  of  print.  Without  forgetting  Symonds'  excellent  and  inspiriting 
essay  it  may  safely  be  said  that  Prof.  Mackail's  selection,  with  its  prefatory  essay  and 
notes,  forms  the  best  introduction  to  the  Anthology  on  its  literary  side.  The  new  edition 
differs  only  slightly  in  contents  from  its  predecessor  (ten  epigrams  have  been  omitted  and 
twenty  added),  but  it  has  been  carefully  revised  throughout.  The  only  drawback  is  its 
price,  which  will  compel  many  who  would  have  read  it  with  profit  and  interest  to  deny 
themselves  that  pleasure.  It  is  some  compensation  that  the  Greek  text  is  now  separately 
issued  in  a  cheap  and  attractive  form,  which  will  make  a  delightful  pocket  companion  ; 
but  it  is  a  pity  that  Prof.  Mackail's  introduction  should  not  be  made  more  generally 

Isocratis  Opera  Omnia:  recensuit  E.  Drerup.     Vol.  I.     Pp.  cxcix  +  196.  Leipzig: 
Teubner,  190(3.      14  m. 

A  critical  edition  of  Isocrates  has  long  been  needed,  and  the  appearance  of  the  first  volume 
of  Dr.  Drerup's  work  shows  that  the  want  is  in  a  fair  way  to  be  supplied.  It  contains 
the  text  of  the  first  thirteen  orations,  with  testimonia  and  critical  apparatus,  and  full 
prolegomena.  The  latter  include  not  only  a  description  of  the  textual  materials 
but  a  discussion  of  the  dates  and  authenticity  of  the  orations  comprised  in  this  volume. 


Textually,  Isocrates  is  remarkable  on  account  of  the  existence  of  two  papyrus  manu- 
scripts of  considerable  length,  which  carry  us  back  to  a  stage  in  the  tradition  before 
the  two  main  families  of  vellum  MSS.  diverged.  One  of  these,  the  Marseilles  papyrus 
of  the  In  Nicoclem,  comes  into  use  in  the  present  volume  ;  the  other,  the  British  Museum 
papyrus  of  the  De  Pace,  will  be  of  service  in  a  subsequent  volume.  Dr.  Drerup  can  be 
trusted  to  make  full  use  of  it3  since  he  has  examined  the  original  at  length  ;  and  since  his 
results  have  been  revised  and  extended  by  Mr.  H.  I.  Bell  (whose  complete  edition  of 
the  papyrus  appeared  in  the  Journal  of  Philology  last  year)  there  need  be  no  hesitation 
in  accepting  them  as  trustworthy.  The  continuation  of  Dr.  Drerup's  edition  will  be 
awaited  with  interest. 

Paralipomena  Sophoclea  :  supplementary  notes  on  the  text  and  interpretation 
of  Sophocles,  by  Lewis  Campbell,  M.  A.  Pp.  xv  +  287.  London:  Rivingtons,  1907. 
5*.  net. 

In  this  volume  Prof.  Campbell  puts  on  record  his  final  opinion  on  a  large  number 
of  passages  in  Sophocles  in  which  his  original  interpretation  differed  from  that  adopted 
by  Sir  R.  C.  Jebb.  In  some  cases  he  frankly  adopts  Jebb's  view  ;  in  others  he  shows 
cause  for  maintaining  his  previous  opinion  ;  occasionally  he  offers  a  fresh  explanation 
altogether.  Admirable  as  Jebb's  edition  is,  it  stands  to  reason  that  it  cannot  be  final  in  all 
respects,  and  no  one  lias  a  better  right  than  Campbell,  whose  life  has  been  spent  in 
the  study  of  Attic  literature,  to  express  dissent  and  put  on  record  alternative  views. 
And  the  tone  which  he  adopts  towards  his  great  rival  (or  let  us  rather  say  colleague)  is  in 
all  respects  admirable.  Since  the  book  consists  wholly  of  short  notes  on  a  great  quantity 
of  passages,  it  is  obviously  impossible  to  discuss  it  in  detail  here  ;  but  it  will  have 
to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  future  editors,  and  it  comes  opportunely,  since 
the  Oxford  Press  will  soon,  we  hope,  be  including  Sophocles  in  its  series  of  classical 

Bacchilide :    epinici,    ditirambi,    e  frammenti,  con  introduzione,  comento,  e  appendice 
critica.     Di  A.  Taccone.     Pp.  li  +  218.     Torino  :  Loescher,  1907.     Lire  3.50. 

English  students  do  not  in  general  require  any  further  edition  of  Bacchylides  than  Jebb's  ; 
but  to  those  who  desire  a  smaller  or  a  cheaper  book,  which  nevertheless  contains  a  full 
commentary  on  the  poems,  Taccone's  work  may  be  recommended  as  serviceable  and 
convenient.  He  has  made  full  use  of  the  previous  literature  on  the  subject,  so  that  the 
reader  is  placed  in  possession  of  the  views  that  other  scholars  have  taken  of  the  restoration 
or  explanation  of  doubtful  passages.  The  editor's  original  contributions  are  not  large,  but 
he  has  carefully  considered  the  work  of  others,  and  his  edition  should  be  very  useful  to 
Italian  students. 

Adonis,  Attis,  Osiris  :  Studies  in  the  History  of  Oriental  Religion.     By  J.  G.  Frazer. 
Pp.  356.     London  :  Macmillan,  1906.     10*.  net. 

In  the  preface  to  this  hook  Dr.  Frazer  explains  that  the  studies  of  Oriental  cults  are  an 
expansion  of  the  corresponding  sections  in  the  Golden  Bough,  and  will  form  part  of  the 
third  edition  of  that  work.  A  careful  student  of  the  author's  previous  books  will  perhaps 
be  prepared  for  the  general  conclusions  ;  but  the  expansion  is  so  considerable  that  readers 
of  the  Golden  Boiujh  will  find  it  necessary  to  revise  their  ideas  of  Adonis  and  other  kindred 
deities  in  the  light  of  these  later  studies.  Not  only  is  much  of  the  material  new.  but  there 
is  also  some  difference  in  the  treatment:  in  method,  Dr.  Frazer  lavs  greater  stress  on  the 
effect  produced  on  Oriental  religion  by  the  natural  features  of  the  East  ;  in  tone,  there  is 


a  distinct  change  from  the  first  (and,  to  a  less  extent,  from  the  second)  edition  of  the  Golden 
Bough.  Dr.  Frazer  is  no  longer  content  to  allow  the  many  analogies  between  ancient  cults 
and  modern  Christianity  to  speak  for  themselves,  and  he  frankly  states  his  own  conclusions 
on  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion. 

The  general  argument  of  the  book  may  be  briefly  stated  in  the  author's  own  words 
'  under  the  names  of  Osiris,  Tammuz,  Adonis,  and  Attis,  the  peoples  of  Egypt  and  western 
Asia  represented  the  yearly  decay  and  revival  of  life,  especially  of  vegetable  life,  which 
they  personified  as  a  god  who  annually  died  and  rose  again  from  the  deid.  In  name  and 
detail  the  rites  varied  from  place  to  place:  in  substance  they  were  the  same'  (p.  5). 
It  is  impossible,  however,  to  do  justice  in  a  short  notice  to  the  learning  and  wealth  of 
illustration  which  support  the  argument.  An  interesting  feature  is  the  explanation  of 
customs  or  myths  concerned  with  the  burning  of  gods  or  kings,  as  possibly  due  to  '  a 
conception  of  the  purifying  virtue  of  fire,  which,  by  destroying  the  corruptible  and  perish- 
able elements  of  man,  was  supposed  to  fit  him  for  union  with  the  imperishable  and  divine  ' 
(p.  100).  Dr.  Frazer  suggests  that,  as  men  might  attain  to  divinity  by  burning,  so  the 
gods  themselves  might  be  refreshed  and  renovated  by  the  ordeal  of  fire.  The  account  of 
the  myth  and  ritual  of  Attis  contains  much  that  is  new  and  striking,  and  the  repulsive 
part  of  the  cult  gains  a  fresh  significance  from  Dr.  Frazer's  exhaustive  treatment.  His 
conclusion,  that  the  spread  of  Oriental  religions  in  the  West  was  one  of  the  chief  causes 
that  undermined  ancient  civilization  is  no  doubt  true  ;  but  his  attack  on  the  '  selfish  and 
immoral  doctrine '  of  '  the  commune  of  the  soul  with  God  and  its  eternal  salvation  as  the 
only  object  worth  living  for'  (p.  194)  will  seem  to  many  a  prejudiced  and  unfair  present- 
ment of  the  ideals  of  early  and  medieval  Christianity,  which  Dr.  Frazer  has  in  mind 
(p.  195).  The  final  chapters,  on  Osiris,  are  a  very  valuable  contribution  to  our  knowledge 
of  a  subject  of  great  complexity. 

The  Cults  of  the  Greek  States.  By  L.  R.  Farnell.  Volumes  III.,  IV.  Vol.  III.  : 
pp.  xii  +  392,  with  35  Plates;  Vol.  IV.  :  pp.  viii+454,  with  51  Plates.  Oxford: 
Clarendon  Press,  1907.     32s.  net. 

After  an  interval  of  more  than  ten  years  Dr.  Farnell  has  published  a  second  instalment 
of  his  '  Cults,'  the  new  volumes  dealing  with  the  Earth-goddesses  (Ge,  Demeter,  Kore- 
Persephone),  Poseidon,  and  Apollo.  The  work  has  grown  beyond  the  bounds  which  the 
author  originally  contemplated  ;  three  volumes  in  all  were  proposed  in  1895,  whereas  in 
the  preface  to  vol.  iii.  it  is  announced  that  the  book  will  be  completed  in  five  volumes,  the 
last  to  discuss  Hermes,  Dionysus,  and  minor  cults.  In  vol.  i.  there  was  room  for  Zeus, 
Hera,  and  Athena,  while  Demeter  and  Kore  have  practically  filled  an  entire  volume. 
Except  in  the  matter  of  expansion  (and  this  is  a  distinct  gain),  Dr.  Farnell  has  preserved 
all  the  features  which  marked  the  two  earlier  volumes,  the  chapter  devoted  to  the  cults 
being  followed  by  chapters  on  the  monuments  and  ideal  type  of  each  deity.  It  is 
noticeable  that  Dr.  Farnell  now  lays  somewhat  greater  stress  on  the  results  of  anthro- 
pological study  :  quotations  from  Mannhardt,  Lang,  and  Frazer  are  certainly  more 
numerous  than  before,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  Demeter  and  Kore,  where,  indeed, 
the  evidence  of  the  Comparative  method  cannot  be  neglected.  He  does  not,  however,  over- 
estimate  the  importance  of  anthropology,  and  reminds  us  that  'its  application  to  the  higher 
facts  of  our  religious  history  might  be  combined  with  more  caution  and  more  special 
knowledge  than  has  always  heen  shown  hitherto'  (pre/,  p.  iv).  The  author  himself  is 
eminently  cautious  in  his  own  treatment  of  Demeter  and  of  problems  connected  with  the 
Thesmophoi  ia  and  Eletusinian  mysteries.  He  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  a  corn-totem, 
remarking  that  there  is  no  evidence  for  its  existence  in  Greece  (iii.  p.  137)  ;  he  does  not 
believe  that  the  Thesmophoria  can  be  explained  by  the  theory  that  the  invention  of 
agriculture  and  the  cultivation  of  cereals  were  due  to  women  ;  and  he  is  equally  sceptical 
with  regard  to  the  matriarchal  hypothesis,  by  which  Miss  Harrison  and  others  account  for 


the  Thesmophoria,  among  many  other  rites  in  Greek  religion.  His  own  view  is  that  '  the 
psychological  explanation  is  more  probable  than  the  sociological'  (p.  Ill)  ;  women  were 
in  charge  of  the  Thesmophoria  because  they  are  apt  to  be  more  ecstatic  and  orgiastic,  and 
so  hold  a  stronger  magic,  whereby  they  are  more  in  sympathy  with  the  earth-goddess, 
Avhose  generative  powers  resemble  their  own.  His  criticism  of  the  matriarchate  question  is 
a  useful  corrective  to  a  theory  which,  as  applied  to  Greek  religion,  has  lately  shown  a 
tendency  to  run  riot.  Equally  sane  is  the  discussion  of  the  Eleusinia,  a  problem 
exhaustively  treated  within  the  limits  which  the  author  imposes  upon  himself.  On  the 
question,  is  there  a  secret  worth  discovery,  and,  if  so,  can  it  be  discovered  I  Dr.  Farnell 
•comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fast,  the  mystic  food,  the  passion-play,  and  the  objects 
revealed  to  the  mystics  produced,  not  a  sense  of  absolute  union  with  the  divine  nature,  but 
at  least  a  feeling  of  intimacy  and  friendship  with  deities  who  were  powerful  in  the  nether 
world,  and  could  there  reward  their  worshippers.  The  o-raxvs  rede pia fj.evns,  on  which  so 
much  stress  has  been  laid,  was  not  an  object  of  worship,  but  one  of  the  number  of  things 
reverentially  displayed. 

The  greater  part  of  vol.  iv.  is  assigned  to  Apollo,  whose  origin  and  cults  are  discussed 
with  good  judgment.  The  title  AuVios  appears  to  belong  to  the  oldest  stratum  of  Apolline 
religion,  and  as  it  can  only  mean  'wolf-god,'  it  implies  a  reverence  for  the  wolf  in  a 
hunting  or  pastoral  stage  of  society  ;  but  here  again  Dr.  Farnell  points  out  that  this 
respect  need  not  be  totemistic  (p.  116).  On  the  original  significance  of  Apollo  he  is  very 
guarded,  holding  that  the  orthodox  theory  of  an  Aryan  sun-god  is  a  prion  very  possible, 
but  cannot  be  proved  :  the  ordinary  Greek,  until  the  time  of  Euripides  and  Plato,  did  not 
identify  or  associate  Apollo  with  Helios,  and  Greek  cult  gives  little  support  to  the  solar 
theory.  Dr.  Farnell  acknowledges  that  the  reaction  against  the  extravagances  of  the  solar 
myth  may  be  pushed  too  far  ;  and  it  is  perhaps  a  question  whether  his  own  treatment  of 
Apollo  is  not  a  case  in  point.  The  appellative  Qolfios  is  certainly  connected  with  <pdosy  and 
is  most  naturally  explained  as  the  epithet  or  name  of  a  light-god.  When  the  author 
remarks  that  no  one  would  maintain  that  the  Sanskrit  'Devas'  are  all  sun-gods,  he  seems 
to  miss  a  distinction  :  if,  in  one  mythology,  all  gods  are  called  '  bright  ones,'  the  title 
may  well  mean  '  heavenly ' — a  common  appellative  of  a  class  ;  but  if,  in  another  mythology. 
a  similar  name  is  the  exclusive  property  of  a  single  god,  it  is  hard  to  resist  the  inference 
that  this  god  was  the  'bright  one'  par  excellence,  i.e.  the  sun.  Again,  Dr.  Farnell 
depreciates  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  name  of  &oi$r),  of  whom  he  says  that  'nothing  in 
her  legend  or  genealogy  clearly  reveals  any  solar  trait.'  There  is  of  course  no  question 
about  solar  traits  ;  but  if  Phoebe  is  a  lunar  goddess,  as  is  implied  by  her  later. identification 
with  Selene,  we  have  thus  indirect  evidence  that  in  primitive  times  the  sun  and  moon 
were  called  <t>oi(3o«r  and  <bol(iri  respectively.  It  is  however  a  fact,  as  Robert  has  already 
pointed  out  (Preller-Robert,  Grieeh.  Myth.  i.  p.  231),  that  the  sun-theory  rests  on  no 
evidence  from  cult,  popular  poetry,  or  art  ;  and  it  is  well  for  us  to  be  reminded  that  the 
identification  of  Apollo  with  the  sun  really  belongs  to  the  same  kind  of  ancient  speculation 
that  derived  Hera  from  the  air.  In  any  case,  the  true  importance  of  Apollo  lies  in  his 
greatness  as  a  political,  social  and  ethical  divinity,  and  in  these  respects  Dr.  Farnell  s 
admirable  account  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.  The  '  ideal  types'  of  Apollo  are  I 
and  discussed  with  discrimination,  and  show  that  the  author  is  as  sound  in  art-criticism  as 
in  dealing  with  Greek  religion.  Scholars  will  welcome  the  completion  of  Dr.  Farnell  s 
task,  which  is  promised  for  nexl  year;  meanwhile  we  may  congratulate  him  on  a  work 
which  cannot  fail  to  be  ranked  among  the  most  important  of  contributions  to  our 
knowledge  of  Greek  religion. 

The  Art  of  the  Greeks.     By  H.  B.  Walters.     Pp.  277  ;  112  plate-,  and  18  figs,  in 
text.     London  :  Methuen  and  Co.  [1906].     12*.  6d.  net. 

The  author  makes  a  general  survey  of  the  leading  branches  of  Greek  art.     After  two 
chapters  devoted   to  preliminary  considerations,   he  discusses  in  turn  the  Architecture, 


Sculpture,  Painting,  Vases,  Terracottas,  Engraved  Gems,  Coins,  and  Metal  work  of  the 
Greeks.  In  each  case,  the  elementary  facts  are  stated,  as  far  as  may  be,  in  chronological 

The  illustrations  are  for  the  most  part  half-tone  blocks,  printed  as  plates.     In  many 
cases,  the  results  are  brilliant. 

Studies  in  the  History  and  Art  of  the  Eastern  Provinces  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  Written  for  the  Quatercentenary  of  the  University  of  Aberdeen  by  seven 
of  its  Graduates.  Edited  by  W.  M.  Ramsay.  [Aberdeen  University  Studies,  No.  20.] 
Pp.  xvi  +  391.  11  Plates,  3  Maps,  and  numerous  Illustrations  in  the  Text.  Aberdeen 
University  Press,  1906. 

The  title  sufficiently  explains  the  motive  for  the  appearance  of  this  book,  although  it  is 
somewhat  misleading  as  an  indication  of  the  contents,  seeing  that  they  are  confined  to  Asia 
Minor,  and  indeed  for  the  most  part  to  Sir  William  Ramsay's  special  preserve,  Phrygia  and 
the  surrounding  districts,  Pisidia,  Lycaonia,  and  Isauria.  The  volume  is  a  remarkable 
monument  to  the  editor's  genius  for  exploration  and  for  inspiring  others  with  his  own 
enthusiasm  for  a  subject  from  which  interesting  results  can  only  be  extracted  by  the  exercise 
of  much  painful  research.  Of  the  seven  contributors,  the  names  of  Miss  Margaret  Ramsay, 
Mr.  Callander,  and  Mr.  J.  G.  C.  Anderson,  as  well  as  of  the  editor,  are  familiar  to  readers 
of  this  Journal.  Miss  Ramsay's  contribution  on  Isaurian  and  East-Phrygian  Art  in  the 
Third  and  Fourth  Centuries  after  Christ  is,  in  fact,  a  development  of  her  recent  article  on 
that  subject.  It  is  the  only  one  of  the  articles  of  much  interest  to  the  student  of  ancient 
art.  It  is  a  conscientious  and  useful  piece  of  work,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  its  value  is 
not  diminished  by  the  exaggeration  of  the  importance  of  this  local  art.  In  the  conclusion 
that  '  the  mountain  land  of  Northern  Isauria  .  .  .  was  the  place  of  origin  of  a  new  kind 
of  decorative  art,  which  spread  widely  over  the  Roman  world  '  we  recognize  an  alarming 
development  of  Dr.  Strzygowski's  theories.  Mr.  J.  G.  C.  Anderson  has  an  important  paper 
on  Paganism  and  Christianity  in  N.  Phrygia.  The  editor  contributes  a  Report  on 
Exploration  in  Phrygia  and  Lycaonia,  and  also  prints  his  Rede  lecture  on  the  War  of 
Moslem  and  Christian  for  the  possession  of  Asia  Minor.  His  most  valuable  contribution 
is  on  the  Tekmoreian  Guest-Friends  :  perhaps  an  Anti-Christian  Society  on  the  Imperial 
Estates  at  Pisidian  Antioch.  Some  brief  contributions  in  verse  (English,  Latin,  and 
Greek)  give  to  this  University  publication  a  characteristically  British  touch.  Though 
some  of  the  facsimiles  of  inscriptions  leave  much  to  be  desired,  the  printing  and 
illustrations  are  good,  and  the  volume  as  a  whole  thoroughly  worthy  of  the  occasion. 

The  Roman  Forts  on  the  Bar  Hill,  Dumbartonshire.  By  George  Macdonald 
and  Alexander  Park.  With  a  note  on  the  architectural  details  by  Thomas  Ross. 
Pp.  xii  +  150.  With  4  plates  and  54  illustrations.  Glasgow:  Maclehose,  1906. 
5s.  net. 

This  is  a  clear  and  ably  written  account  of  one  of  the  most  interesting  contributions  that 
recent  excavations  have  made  to  our  knowledge  of  Roman  Britain.  Considerable  praise  is 
due  to  Mr.  Whitelaw,  the  owner  of  the  property  on  which  the  camps  are  situated,  who 
carried  out  tin;  excavations  at  his  own  expense  ;  and  he  is  also  to  be  congratulated  on 
having  entrusted  the  Beport  to  Messrs.  Macdonald  and  Park.  He  must  already  have  felt 
amply  rewarded  when,  on  the  very  first  morning,  the  workmen  struck  a  well  which  had  been 
tilled  up  with  a  most  extraordinary  collection  of  antiquities.  No  such  exciting  find  was 
made  in  the  subsequent  excavation,  but  the  plans  of  the  Antonine  fort  and  of  Agricola's 
amp  which     preceded  it  were  recovered  in  some  detail.     Two  inscriptions  (one  being  a 


dedication  to  the  Emperor  Pius,  and  both  mentioning  the  first  Baetasian  cohort)  and  some 
curious,  apparently  prophy lactic,  busts  of  freestone,  not  to  speak  of  architectural  fragments, 
are  among  the  stone  remains.  The  most  remarkable  of  all  the  relics  is  an  admirably  made 
chariot-wheel  of  eleven  spokes,  found  intact  in  a  refuse-hole.  The  authors  give  good  reason 
for  supposing  that  this  and  similarly  made  wheels  are  not  Roman  but  native  in  origin. 
Among  the  other  remains  are  a  fine  set  of  leather  shoes  of  various  kinds  ;  a  small  series  of 
denarii  (mostly  shams,  made  of  tin,  apparently  for  the  purpose  of  dedication  to  the  gods  !)  ; 
and  some  remarkable  instruments  of  deer-horn,  similar  to  others  which  were  found  to  the 
number  of  thirty-two  in  the  armoury  of  Carnuntum.  So  far  no  one  has  succeeded  in 
explaining  the  object  of  these  instruments,  and  the  problem  may  be  commended  to  the 
consideration  of  readers  of  a  mechanical  turn  of  mind.  The  Report  is  well  illustrated, 
and  more  interesting  reading  than  such  reports  usually  are. 

Antike  Denkmaeler  in  Bulgarien.  Edited  by  E.  Kalinka  (with  nine  colla- 
borators). Vienna  Academy,  1906.  (Schriften  der  Balkankommission,  Antiquar. 
Abt.  IV.)     220  pages,  162  figs,  and  many  facsimiles. 

This  volume  is  a  provisional  Corpus  of  the  architectonic,  epigraphic,  and  sculptural 
remains  of  Bulgaria,  classified  according  to  subject  matter.  471  objects  are  admirably 
catalogued,  with  adequate  illustrations  of  all  the  sculptures;  with  facsimiles  or  illustrations 
of  all  the  inscriptions  and  with-eopious  indices. 

With  the  exception  of  a  single  item  (No.  333,  the  early  Greek  stele  of  Anaxandros), 
the  whole  of  the  works  described  appear  to  be  of  a  late  and  provincial  class.  They  are 
now  made  conveniently  accessible,  and  it  is  possible  to  take  a  general  view  of  the  extant 
antiquities  of  Bulgaria. 

Geschichte  der  Meder  und  Perser  bis  zur  makedonischen  Eroberung.  [Handbiicher 
der  alten  Geschichte.]  Von  Justin  V.  Prasee.  Erster  Band.  Geschichte  der  Meder 
unci  des  Reichs  der  Lander.     Gotha,  1906. 

This,  the  first  volume  of  a  History  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  is  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  deals  with  the  Kingdom  founded  by  the  Medes.  Here  the  chief  points  of 
interest  to  the  student  of  Greek  history  are  the  account  of  the  Cimmerian  invasion  and 
the  discussion  of  the  relative  value  of  the  authority  of  Hecataeus,  Herodotus,  and  Ctesias 
of  Cnidus,  the  last  named  the  physician  long  resident  at  the  court  of  Artaxerxes.  The 
second  part  is  devoted  to  the  rise  of  the  Persians  and  the  foundation  of  their  Empire  under 
Cyrus.  The  fall  of  Croesus  and  the  expedition  of  Cambyses  to  Egypt  are  the  events 
which  touch  most  closely  upon  Greek  history-  The  volume  closes  with  the  revolt  of  the 
false  Bardes  and  the  death  of  Cambyses.  The  book  is  valuable  as  presenting  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  Orientalist  many  events  which  are  generally  regarded  solely  from  the 
Greek  point  of  view.  The  second  volume  will  carry  the  history  of  Persia  down  to  the  fall 
of  the  Empire  of  the  Achaemenidae  before  the  victorious  Alexander. 

Hat  Dorpfeld  die  Enneakrunos-episode  bei  Pausanias  tatsachlich  gelost, 
oder  auf  welchem  Wege  kann  diese  gelost  werden?  Einige  Bemerkungen 
zu  Judeich's  Topographie  von  Athen.Von  Alexander  Malinin.     35  pp.     Wien.  1906. 

This  pamphlet  on  a  threadbare  theme  justifies  its  existence  by  a  new  suggestion. 
M.  Malinin  points  out  that  in  Pans.  1.  14.  5  the  temple  of  Eucleia  is  described  as  dvddrjfia 
kcu  tovto  dno  Mr)8a>v,  though  no  reference  to  the  Persians  occurs  immediately  before.  In 
fact  the  nearest  reference  to  the  Persians  is  in  I.  8.  6,  the  passage  about  the  statues  of  the 


Tyrannicides.  Hence  he  infers  that  the  chapters  between  have  been  interpolated  ;  and  it 
so  happens  that  those  chapters  just  contain  the  whole  of  the  '  Enneakrunos-episode ' :  if 
they  be  omitted,  the  description  of  the  agora  is  continuous.  Thus  Dr.  Malinin  claims  to 
have  found  indications  of  the  wrong  insertion  of  the  'episode'  in  this  place.  If  he  would 
go  on,  and  point  out  where  is  the  place  in  which  it  ought  to  be  inserted,  he  would  have  a 
•complete  and  consistent  theory  as  good  as  any  that  has  been  suggested  on  the  matter. 
Naturally  those  who  see  no  need  for  assuming  the  insertion  of  the  'episode'  will  not  be 
convinced  by  his  explanation. 

Urkunden  dramatischer  Auffuhrungen  in  Athen  ;  mit  einem  Beitrage  von 
G.  Ivaibel  ;  herausg.  von  A.  Wilhelm.  Pp.  279.  68  Abbildungen.  [Sonderschr. 
des  Oest.  Archaol.  Institutes,  Bd.  VI.]  Wien  :  Holder,  1906. 

This  volume,  as  its  title  and  the  names  of  its  authors  alone  suffice  to  indicate,  is  of  capital 
importance  and  indispensable  to  all  students  of  the  history  of  Greek  drama.  The  epigraphic 
documents  dealt  with  fall  into  three  classes  :  (1)  the  list  of  victors  at  the  Dionysia  (I.G.  ii. 
971)  ;  (2)  the  Didaskaliai  (I.G.  ii.  972-976  and  1315  ;  (3)  the  lists  of  victors, — tragic  and 
comic  poets  and  actors — (I.G.  ii.  977).  The  first  is  the  famous  list  which  in  the  first  few 
lines  mentions  Pericles  and  the  poets  Magnes  and  Aeschylus,  recording  the  hitter's  victory 
with  the  Persae  in  473-2  B.C.  Dr.  Wilhelm  leaves  the  headline  in  the  form  ttp<ot]oi>  km/jloi 
rjcrau  rw[i  liopvcrax.,  rejecting  with  good  reason  Koehler's  restoration  tu>[v  Tpaycoibwv  xal  to>v 
Kw/xwiScoi',  but  not  deciding  between  the  many  other  possibilities.  Three  new  fragments 
are  added  to  this  list.  The  mention  of  Menander  in  tlie  list  of  victors  (ii.  977)  enables  Dr. 
Wilhelm  to  give  an  interesting  note  on  the  date  of  his  first  appearance  (he  first  repre- 
sented 322-1,  was  first  successful  with  the  'Opyfj,  in  316-5)  and  on  the  date  of  the  'Euvtov 
Ti/xcupoi'/xfj/or,  showing  that  the  king  mentioned  in  Terence  Heaut.  117  is  not  necessarily 
Alexander  the  Great.  Kaibel's  contribution  to  the  volume  is  an  interesting  discussion  of 
the  chronological  problems  involved  in  the  lists  of  victors.  A  series  of  appendices 
deals  with  various  side  issues,  and  with  recent  works  by  Capps  and  Foucart  bearing  on  the 
history  of  the  drama.  The  volume  is  characterised  by  the  thoroughness  and  acumen  which 
is  to  be  found  in  all  Dr.  Wilhelm's  epigraphic  publications,  and  is  admirably  printed  and 

Histoire  Sommaire  des  Etudes  d'Bpigraphie  grecque.     Par  S.    Chabert. 
Pp.  166.     Paris  :  Leroux.     1906. 

M.  ('liabet's  account  of  the  study  of  Greek  inscriptions  from  the  earliest  times  (he  begins 
with  Hellanicus)  to  the  present  day  is  very  readable,  giving  somewhat  more  than  the  dry 
bones  of  what  does  not  at  first  sight  seem  a  very  attractive  subject.  The  origin  and  methods 
of  the  various  attempts  at  a  Corpus  are  fully  explained,  and  the  treatment  generally  is 
sympathetic.  Perhaps  the  writer  is  a  little  unkind  to  Fourmont,  who,  as  Wilhelm  has 
recently  shown,  is  not  in  all  respects  so  black  as  he  has  been  painted.  Some  minor  inac- 
curacies, especially  in  foreign  names,  are  noticeable.  Of  books  about  or  bearing  on  inscrip- 
tions which  are  mentioned  not  at  all  or  not  in  their  natural  place,  we  may  note  Bechtel's 
monograph  on  Ionic  inscriptions,  Kern's  Magnesia,  Liiwy's  inscriptions  of  sculptors,  H. 
-J.  Bose's  Inacriptiohes  Graecae  vetustissimae,  the.  third  edition  of  Meisterhans  by  Schwyzer, 
von  Scala's  Treaties,  and  Kirchner's  Prosopographia.  (Just's  History  of  the  Society  of 
Dilettanti  is  later  than  Michaelis'  account,  and  the  British  School  at  Athens  has  a  Govern- 
ment grant. 


The  Syntax  of  the  Boeotian  Dialect  Inscriptions.     By  Edith  F.  Claflin. 
(Bryn  Mawr  Diss.)     Pp.  95.     Baltimore,  Lord  Baltimore  Press,  1905. 

Miss  Claflin's  study  of  the  Boeotian  Inscriptions  from  the  point  of  view  of  syntax  is  a 
very  careful  piece  of  work,  the  real  value  of  which  will  perhaps  be  more  apparent  when  she 
•or  other  scholars  may  have  with  equal  patience  similarly  analysed  the  inscriptions  of  other 
dialects.  It  will  then  he  possible  to  obtain  a  true  perspective  of  the  syntactical  peculiarities 
of  the  various  dialects.  The  present  analysis  reveals  comparatively  little  that  is  peculiar  to 
Boeotian  ;  partly,  it  is  true,  because  the  brevity  or  official  character  of  most  inscriptions 
hardly  admits  of  much  syntactical  elaboration.  In  §  9.  4  it  is  a  little  surprising  that  the 
writer  should  hesitate  to  decide  between  vocative  and  genitive  in  the  grave-inscription 
I.G.J.  149:  KaXXm  Myl{6)6our  rv  S'  tv  7rp«o-[>'  w]  mipoSara.  The  genitive  seems  to  us 
undoubtedly  the  right  interpretation.  The  reason  for  the  use  of  the  genitive  in  dating  by 
months  might  have  been  more  clearly  stated  in  §  9.  29  :  a  phrase  like  evvapXo>  (ipxovros 
.fxuvos  Qeihweico  of  course  expresses  an  extended  period,  not  a  point  of  time.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  while  eTrtWe  is  common  in  artists'  signatures,  the  imperfect  does 
not  occur. 

Corolla  Numismatica.  Numismatic  Essays  in  Honour  of  Barclay  V.  Head.  Pp.  xvi 
+  386.  Oxford  University  Press,  1906.  With  frontispiece,  18  collotype  plates,  and 
39  illustrations  in  the  text.  30s. 
That  this  sumptuous  volume  is  of  the  nature  of  a  Festschrift  is  sufficiently  clear  from  its 
title.  The  recognition  it  implies  has  been  richly  merited  ;  and  it  is  pleasant  to  find  that 
the  'little  crown '  is  in  every  way  worthy  of  the  purpose  it  was  meant  to  serve.  Mr.  G.  F. 
Hill  has  acted  as  editor,  while  the  individual  essayists  number  thirty  in  all.  The  continental 
countries  best  represented  are  Germany  and  France,  but  tributes  come  also  from  Denmark, 
Greece,  Italy,  and  Switzerland.  The  variety  of  subjects  handled  is  naturally  very  great. 
There  is  hardly  a  side  of  ancient  numismatics  that  is  not  touched  upon,  and  consecpuently 
no  reader  is  likely  to  be  sent  empty  away.  In  point  of  time,  discussion  ranges  from  the 
Mycenaean  age  to  the  days  of  the  Byzantine  Emperors.  Its  geographical  limits  lie  between 
Gaul  on  thedie  hand  and  India  on  the  other.  Esoteric  disquisitions  on  problems  of 
metrology  and  technique  are  agreeably  diversified  by  excursions  into  the  less  arid  domains 
of  history  and  archaeology.  As  a  rule,  each  of  the  essays  has  an  importance  of  its  own 
in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  while  a  few  of  them  are  probably  destined  to  be 
permanently  valuable.  It  is  eminently  fitting  that  so  noteworthy  a  collection  should  be 
associated  with  the  name  of  Mr.  Head. 

In  the  circumstances  it  is  not  possible  to  give,  within  reasonable  space,  any  detailed 
indication  of  the  character  of  the  contents.  Selection  on  the  ground  of  merit  might  be 
invidious.  We  shall,  therefore,  restrict  ourselves  to  merely  mentioning  two  or  three  of 
the  papers  that  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  typical.  None  will  attract  more  general  interest 
than  M.  Babelon's  publication  of  anobol  bearing  the  name  of  the  Athenian  tyrant  Hippias. 
Prof.  Dressel's  reconstruction  of  the  temple  of  Matidia  and  the  basilicas  of  Matidia  and 
Marciana  is  very  tempting,  although  it  depends  upon  the  rehabilitation  of  a  medallion 
condemned  as  false  by  Eckhel.  Colonel  Allotte  de  la  Fiiye's  classification  of  the  coins  of 
Persis  marks  a  distinct  advance  towards  the  solution  of  a  most  obscure  and  difficult  series 
of  questions.  What  M.  Paul  Perdrizet  has  to  say  of  Nicopolis  ad  Mestum  deserves  the 
particular  attention  of  students  of  mythology.  Mr.  A.  J.  Evans  opens  up  new  vistas  in 
his  account  of  Minoan  weights  and  mediums  of  currency.  Dr.  Gaebler  traces  the  history 
of  the  famous  coin  collection  of  Queen  Christina  of  Sweden.  But  we  must  forbear,  adding 
only  that  for  the  numismatic  enthusiast  there  is  scarcely  a  dull  page  in  the  honk.  The 
collotype  plates  are  good  ;  and  the  portrait  of  Mr.  Head,  which  forms  the  frontispiece,  is 
excellent.     In  the  nature  of  things  the  compilation  of  an  index  was  impracticable. 


Die  antiken  Munzen  von  Makedonia  und  Paionia.     By  Hugo  Gaebler.    Erste 
Abteilung.  Pp.  viii  +  196.     With  five  collotype  plates.     Berlin:  Reimer,  1906.     19  m. 

It  is  just  twenty  years  since  Mommsen  formulated  his  colossal  scheme  for  the  pub- 
lication of  a  complete  and  articulated  description  of  all  known  Greek  coins.  Work 
was  begun  shortly  afterwards  under  the  supreme  direction  of  Dr.  Imhoof-Blumer.  The 
first  half  of  Vol.  I.  appeared  in  1898.  Now,  after  an  interval  of  eight  years,  we  have 
a  second  instalment  of  this  monumental  Corpus.  It  forms  the  opening  section  of  Vol.  III., 
the  coinages  dealt  with  being  the  national  and  provincial  issues  of  Macedonia,  including 
Amphaxitis,  Bottiaea,  and  Beroea.  The  book  fully  maintains  the  high  standard  set  by 
Prof.  Pick's  Dacien  und  Moesien.  Dr.  Gaebler  is  to  be  unreservedly  congratulated.  Not 
only  has  he  established  a  remarkable  series  of  conclusions  on  a  basis  that  promises  to  be 
irrefragable  ;  he  has  set  them  before  his  readers  with  a  lucidity  and  a  precision  that  call 
for  the  very  warmest  praise.  His  Introduction  is  peculiarly  hard  to  summarize,  for  it 
does  not  contain  a  single  superfluous  word.  But  its  contents  are  so  full  of  interest  that  a 
bare  resume  must  be  attempted. 

Philip  II.  had  signalized  the  consolidation  of  his  power  by  suppressing  the  various- 
autonomous  mints  throughout  Macedonia.  Conversely,  when  Philip  V.  found  himself  on 
the  eve  of  a  deadly  struggle  with  Rome,  he  sought  to  enlist  national  feeling  on  his 
side  by  sanctioning  a  revival  of  the  national  coinage.  This  national  coinage  came 
to  an  end  with  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  in  168  B.C.  The  victorious  Romans  divided 
the  country  into  four  administrative  districts  or  '  regions '  (jnepi'Se?),  of  which  the 'first' 
and  the  '  second '  struck  both  silver  and  bronze,  while  (so  far  as  we  know)  the  'fourth' 
struck  bronze  only  and  the 'third'  never  struck  at  all.  The  coinage  of  the  'regions' 
began  about  158  B.C.,  and  the  output  of  tetradrachms  from  the  'first'  distiict  must  have 
been  enormous.  In  150  B.C.  occurred  the  revolt  of  Andriscus.  The  praetor,  P.  Juventius 
Thalna,  who  was  despatched  against  him,  opened  the  campaign  by  seizing  Amphipolis,. 
where  he  struck  tetradrachms  with  types  borrowed  from  the  preceding  series,  but  showing 
a  marked  difference  in  style,  and  bearing  an  olive  branch  (tfaXXo's)  as  a  '  canting  badge/ 
Presently  Thalna  was  totally  defeated  by  Andriscus,  who  in  his  turn  proceeded  to  strike 
tetradrachms  at  Amphipolis.  The  old  types  were  still  used  ;  but  the  obnoxious  '  LEG[r/(  ms 
pro  quaestore]' — which  the  Romans  had  introduced — was  banished,  and  the  head  of 
Artemis  was  bound  with  a  laurel-wreath  in  token  of  victory.  After  the  overthrow  of 
Andriscus  by  Q.  Caecilius  Metellus  in  148  B.C.,  Macedonia  became  a  Roman  province. 
Dr.  Gaebler  gives  a  careful  list  of  the  names  of  all  the  Roman  magistrates  who  are 
known  to  have  been  associated  with  the  government  of  Macedonia  from  148  B.C.  down  to 
the  reign  of  Philippus  Senior,  and  we  are  thus  provided  with  a  convenient  epitome  of  the 
various  changes  that  the  form  of  administration  underwent.  During  the  republican  era 
the  right  of  mintage  was  occasionally  exercised  by  the  Roman  governors,  as,  for  instance, 
L.  Fulcinnius  and  C.  Publilius,  quaestors  of  Metellus  Macedonicus  (148-146  B.C.). 
Under  L.  Julius  Caesar  (93-92  B.C.)  and  C.  Sentius  Saturninus  (92-88  B.C.)  there  was  a 
renewal  of  the  silver-mining  industry,  and  tetradrachms  were  minted  very  freely.  The 
bulk  of  this  money  bears  the  name  of  Aesillas,  as  quaestor.  But  there  are  two  specimens 
signed  by  his  successor,  Q.  Bruttius  Sura,  as  legatus  pro  quaestore. 

Under  the  Empire  the  Macedonian  coinage  falls  into  two  great  classes, — imperial 
pieces  proper,  and  pieces  without  an  imperial  portrait.  Dr.  Gaebler  has  been  aide  to 
accumulate  for  this  period  a  mass  of  material  that  is  practically  exhaustive,  and  the 
deductions  he  has  been  able  to  draw  are  correspondingly  illuminating.  Apart  from  their 
direct  bearing  on  Macedonian  history,  they  have  a  wider  interest  in  connexion  with  the 
general  questions  that  centre  round  the  kolvov  and  the  viu>Kopla,  institutions  that  are  more 
familiar  in  Asia  Minor  than  in  Europe.  The  peculiarly  'agonistic'  character  of  the  later 
coinage  is  well  brought  out,  while  an  Appendix  describes  about  thirty  varieties  of  gold  and 
silver  medals  or  medallions  which  also  appear  to  have  been  connected  with  the  dywves  lepoi. 
The  huge  gold  medallions  of  the  Tarsus  find,  for  example,  are  to  be  associated  with  the 
ayuiu  lepos  celebrated  in  honour  of  the  veuxopia  granted  to  Beroea  in  the  reign  of  Elagabalus. 


It  is  matter  for  considerable  regret  that  a  discussion  of  the  'Aboukir'  medallions  is  re- 
legated to  the  Supplement.     The  Plates  approach  as  near  as  may  be  to  perfection. 

Die   Griechischen   Mtinzen   der   Sammlung  Warren.      By  Kurt    Regling. 
Pp.  viii  +  264.     With  37  photographic  plates.     Berlin:   Keimer,  1906.    40  m. 

The  1769  Greek  coins  herein  described  belonged  to  Mr.  E.  P.  Warren  of  Lewes.  They 
include  1016  that  once  formed  the  singularly  choice  cabinet  of  Canon  Greenwell.  It  was 
originally  intended  that  the  whole  should  pass  into  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  But 
this  intention  has  only  been  partially  fulfilled  ;  some  of  the  coins  remain  in  Lewes,  others 
were  sold  in  London  in  1905.  Prior  to  the  collection  being  thus  broken  up,  it  was  decided 
to  compile  a  permanent  record  of  its  contents.  Those  responsible  were  fortunately  able  to 
secure  the  services  of  Dr.  Regling  for  the  purpose,  and  the  result  is  the  handsome  volume 
now  under  notice, — a  book  that  no  student  of  Greek  numismatics  can  afford  to  neglect. 
The  issues  of  the  best  period,  from  all  parts  of  the  Greek  world,  are  fairly  well  represented. 
But  specimens  of  the  electrum  of  Cyzicus  and  of  the  gold  and  silver  of  Sicily,  Abdera, 
Lampsacus,  and  Cyrene  are  specially  numerous  and  important.  For  the  most  part  the  indi- 
vidual coins  have  been  selected  from  the  point  of  view  of  one  who  combined  the  instincts 
of  the  collector  with  the  tastes  of  the  scholar.  As  a  result,  we  get  many  examples  that  are 
very  fine,  a  considerable  number  that  are  rare,  and  a  few  that  are  unique.  Regling's  de- 
scriptions are  characterized  by  the  care  and  thoroughness  that  were  to  be  expected  from  so 
competent  a  numismatist.  Particular  value  attaches  to  identifications  of  dies  with  those 
of  coins  published  elsewhere.  Useful  notes  abound,  and  there  are  frequent  references  to 
recent  numismatic  literature.     Taken  all  over,  the  Plates  are  good. 

Terina.    Programm  zum  Winkehnannsfeste.    By  Kurt  Reglixg.    Pp.  81.    With  3  Photo- 
graphic plates  and  2  cuts  in  the  text.     Berlin  :  Reimer,  1906. 

The  beautiful  series  of  didrachms  struck  at  Terina  is  a  great  favourite  with  all  lovers 
of  Greek  coins.  Nearly  twenty-five  years  ago  (1883)  many  of  them  were  illustrated  in  a 
paper  published  in  the  Numismatic  Chronicle  by  the  late  R.  S.  Poole.  The  present 
monograph  is  far  more  complete  than  anything  hitherto  attempted.  It  is  practically  an 
exhaustive  list  of  all  known  specimens.  The  number  of  distinct  varieties  catalogued 
(apart  from  plated  coins)  is  84.  Guided  by  stylistic  considerations,  combined  with 
a  minute  study  of  the  dies,  Regling  distributes  these  over  seven  periods  covering  the 
years  between  480  and  356  B  c.  The  most  interesting  of  the  periods  is  that  generally 
associated  with  the  handiwork  of  an  engraver*.  The  opinions  of  other  numisma'i-N 
regarding  this  artist  are  passed  in  review,  and  at  least  one  fresh  piece  of  evidence  is 
adduced.  The  final  conclusion  is  that  it  is  an  abbreviation  of  the  name  Phrygillos,  and 
that  the  little  bird,  which  appears  both  at  Terina  and  at  Thurii,  is  a  '  canting  bad-.-  ' 
(<pf>vyi\os).  An  examination  of  the  types  suggests  that  the  well-known  female  figure  is 
neither  a  nymph  nor  a  Siren,  but  Nike. — an  explanation  that  has  already  had  its  advo- 
cates :  any  peculiarities  in  the  representation  are  to  be  accounted  for  by  assuming  a 
' syncretism '  with  the  city  goddess,  Terina.  Incidentally,  nrca  300  B.c.  is  fixed  upon  as 
the  most  probable  date  for  the  issue  of  the  silver  tetrobols.  The  bronze  coinage 
receives  brief  discussion.  Altogether,  this  'Programm'  is  an  excellent  bit  of  work.  The 
Plates  are  admirable. 


Grammatik  der  griechischen  Papyri  aus  der  Ptolemaerzeit :    Laut-  und 
Wortlehre.     Von  E.  Mayser.     Pp.  xiv  +  538.     Leipzig:  Teubner,  1906. 

So  long  ago  as  189S  Prof.  Mayser  published,  in  a  Heilbronn  Progrannn,  the  first  part  of  a 
grammar  of  the  Ptolemaic  papyri,  dealing  with  the  vowel  phenomena  presented  by  them. 
Since  that  date  the  materials  have  greatly  increased,  mainly  through  the  publication  of  the 
Tebtunis  papyri  and  the  third  part  of  the  Petrie  papyri  (the  Hibeh  papyri  were  published 
too  late  to  be  taken  into  account),  and  Prof.  Mayser  has  now  rehandled  the  whole  subject 
on  a  larger  scale, — a  scale  so  large,  indeed,  that  it  is  not  likely  that  any  word  in  the 
published  Ptolemaic  papyri  has  escaped  his  notice.  The  present  volume  deals  with 
phonetics  and  accidence  ;  a  second  is  promised  upon  the  syntax.  In  a  department  of 
learning  where  the  materials  are  constantly  increasing  so  rapidly  as  is  the  case  with  Greek 
papyri,  it  is  impossible  to  expect  finality  ;  but  as  a  very  full  conspectus  of  the  extant 
phenomena  Prof.  Mayser's  book  will  be  a  useful  work  of  reference  for  some  time  to  come 

Life  in  Ancient  Athens.  [Handbooks  of  Archaeology  and  Antiquities.]  By 
T.  G.  Tucker.  Pp.  xiii  +  212.  With  85  illustrations  and  a  map.  London: 
Macmillan  and  Co.,  1907. 

This  is  in  many  ways  quite  a  remarkable  little  book.  It  is  written  in  an  extremely  fresh 
and  attractive  style,  which  is  well  maintained  throughout.  It  is  quite  unpretentious  :: 
not  a  single  reference  to  authorities  is  given  in  the  body  of  the  work.  Yet  there  are 
abundant  evidences  that  the  author  has  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  Greek  literature- 
and  no  slight  knowledge  of  Greek  archaeology.  The  period  dealt  with  comprises  the 
fifth  and  fourth  centuries  B.C.,  and  all  the  varied  interests  of  Athenian  life  at  that  period 
both  public  and  private,  are  vividly  presented.  The  different  chapters  describe  the 
buildings  the  Athenian  saw  around  him,  how  he  spent  his  time  day  by  day,  what  he  wore, 
how  he  brought  up  his  children,  what  was  his  religious  belief,  and  other  similar  interests 
of  life.  The  main  characteristics  of  Athenian  art  are  briefly  dealt  with.  Perhaps  we 
should  like  to  have  heard  a  little  more  about  the  average  Athenian's  attitude  towards 
Imperial  questions.  It  may  be  noted  also  (a  trivial  point)  that  the  spelling  of  place-names 
in  the  map  does  not  always  agree  with  that  adopted  in  the  text.  The  illustrations  are,, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  excellent. 

The   Princes   of  Achaia  and  the  Chronicles  of  Morea.      By  Sir  Rennell. 
Rodd.     2  vols.     8vo.     Pp.655.     London:  E.  Arnold,  1907.     25.^.  net. 

Sir  Rennell  Rodd  unfolds  an  interesting  story  of  mediaeval  Greece,  which  has  probably 
been  known  to  English  readers  chiefly  through  the  more  limited  studies  of  Finlay,  Tozer,. 
and  Bury.  Gibbon,  who  had  not  the  necessary  material,  dismissed  the  subject  with  a 
lordly  sentence : — '  I  shall  not  pursue  the  obscure  and  various  dynasties  that  rose  and  fell  oil 
the  continent  or  in  the  isles.'  The  author  of  these  volumes  has  naturally  made  full  use  of 
the  invaluable  researches  of  Carl  Hopf,  but  he  has  made  investigations  of  his  own  with 
great  enthusiasm  and  patience.  He  gives  in  an  appendix  an  account  of  the  mediaeval 
Chronicle  of  Morea,  a  record  truly  prosaic  as  a  poem  yet  indispensable,  though  at  times 
treacherous,  as  an  authority.  Prof.  J.  Schmidt's  edition  (London  :  Methuen,  1904)  is 
referred  to,  though  it  seems  to  have  been  published  too  late  for  the  author's  ready  use. 
(There  is  a  still  more  recent  critical  study  of  the  Chronicle  by  A.  J.  Adamantin,  published, 
at  Athens,  1906,  and  noticed  in  Byz.  Zeitxchrtft,  1907,  p.  335.) 

Sir  Rennell  deals  with  a  period  that  extends  from  the  Latin  conquest  of  Constantinople- 
in  1204  to  the  fall  of  the  Eastern  Empire  in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.  We  have 
the  whole  history  of  the  princedom  of  Achaia — practically  the  Peloponnese — and  glimpses 


of  the  rulers  of  Epirus  and  Thessaly,  of  the  Dukes  of  Athens,  and  of  the  rather  distracting 
governors  of  Euboea.  The  scene  is  often  laid  in  such  classic  lands  as  Elis  and  Arcadia, 
with  a  Greek  and  Slav  population  in  the  back-round.  French  knights  like  the  Ville- 
hardouins  and  the  sinister  Charles  of  Anjou,  or  his  bailies,  impose  on  alien  peoples  the  law 
of  the  West— not  harshly,  indeed,  yet  without  enduring  results.  Points  of  feudal  etiquette 
are  referred  to  the  French  King  ;  the  Pope  intervenes  ;  the  Doge  of  Venice  is  ever  on  the 
alert  ;  and  the  Eastern  Emperor  plays  the  part— sometimes  a  small  one— for  which  he  lias 
been  set  down.  The  most  interesting  portions  of  the  work,  for  the  general  reader,  are  those 
describing  the  conquest  by  the  Villehardouins.  Sir  Rennell  writes  very  well,  though  his 
narrative  at  times— perhaps  inevitably— rather  tends  to  dry  chronicle  and  the  narration 
of  family  history.  There  is  always  however  a  useful  statement  of  facts  clearly  set 
forth.  The  book  contains  some  genealogical  tables  and  an  interesting  map  of  mediaeval 
Greece,  where  the  reader  can  find  Clarenza  and  Clairmont  and  Andravida,  and  other  places 
famous  in  Prankish  story.  Perhaps  the  author  may  some  day  be  ab'e  to  give  us  a 
supplementary  volume,  or  at  any  rate  a  portfolio  of  illustrations,  with'  letter  press,  con- 
taining pictures  of  some  of  the  old  strongholds  that  form  such  a  romantic  feature  in  the 
feudal  scenery  of  Morea ;  and  a  selection  from  the  coins,  and  possibly  some  other 
illustrative  matter,  would  be  welcome. 

Bi.p\io0T|KT|  Mapao-Xfj.      MeXeVae  nep\  tov  ftiov  Kai  t?js  yXoiaar]^  tov  'eWtjvikov  Xnov,  wro  N.  I\ 


napoi(xiai.     A',  pp.  tt'  +  600,  1899.     B'.  pp.  127  +  699,  1900.    1",  pp.  686,  1901.     A',  pp.  686, 
1902.     'Ev  'hdfivuK,  tvttOk  n.  A.  ?:aKe\\apiov.     Price,  each  volume,  8  f. 

These  four  volumes  are  a  first  instalment  of  a  complete  collection  of  modern  Greek 
and  Byzantine  proverbs,  brought  together  by  Professor  Politis  from  all  sources,  published, 
unpublished,  and  oral,  and  fully  annotated.  The  most  important  word  has  been  taken  in 
each  proverb,  and  the  collection  arranged  alphabetically  under  these  headings.  The  scale 
of  the  work  is  very  large,  and  the  last  proverb  in  the  fourth  volume  is  entered  under  a 
heading  no  further  down  the  alphabet  than  e'Xe<S.  General  conclusions  on  the  whole 
subject  are  promised  at  the  completion  of  the  work.  In  the  first  volume,  before  beginning 
his  own  collection,  the  author  has  printed  seven  unpublished  collections  of  Byzantine 
proverbs  from  MSS.  at  Munich,  Corfu,  Athens  and  Jerusalem,  and  a  bibliography,  which 
includes  foreign  as  well  as  Greek  proverbs.  The  work  is  far  from  being  a  mere  compilation 
of  material  already  published.  Besides  the  proverbs  he  has  collected  personally,  he  has 
used  lists  of  proverbs  sent  to  him  for  this  purpose  from  all  parts  of  the  Greek-speaking 
world.  Of  these  the  most  important  are  3386  from  Lesbos,  and  2371  from  Cephalonia. 
Each  proverb  is  explained  and  illustrated  by  comparisons  drawn  from  a  wide  field. 
Owing  to  the  lack  of  a  dialect  Dictionary  of  modern  Greek,  and  the  number  of 
unusual  or  local  words  used,  these  explanations  are  not  the  least  valuable  part  of 
the  work. 

The  proverbs  are  recorded,  as  far  as  the  sources  allow,  in  the  local  dialects,  and, 
whilst  they  unavoidably,  if  only  from  the  inadequacy  of  the  Greek  alphabet,  fall  short 
of  complete  accuracy  in  this  respect,  none  of  the  native  colour  has  been  removed  by 
any  translation  into  the  purified  language.  The  sources  used  are  so  wide  and  the  arrange- 
ment so  methodical  that,  as  far  as  modern  proverbs  are  concerned,  it  does  not  seem 
possible  that  it  can  be  superseded,  and  no  fresh  discoveries  of  Byzantine  MS.  collections 
are  likely  to  add  much  of  importance.  The  removal  of  the  National  Library  caused  the 
work  to  be  broken  off  in  1?04.  The  interval  has  been  employed  on  a  collection  of  Uapa86(reis 
or  modern  Greek  traditions,  and,  when  this  is  finished,  the  publication  of  the  Proverbs 
is  to  be  resumed.     The  volumes  are  well  printed  in  the  same  format  as  the  rest  of  the 

15 1 JXiofirJKT)  MopncrXr;. 


Bip\io0T|KT]    Maf>a<rXf].      MeXeVat  ivep\  tov  (Blov   Kai.  rfjs  yXoxTcrrjs  tov    'eWt^vikov    haov,    vno 

N.  T.  IIoXitou. 
IIapa8do-€is,  Me'poy  A',  pp.  1-628  ;  Mepos  B',  pp.  629-1348.      'Ev  'AOrjvais,  rinrois  II.  A.  2a*eX- 

\apiov,  1904.     Price  including  M/po?  A',  20  f. 

These  two  volumes,  of  which  the  first  contains  1013  legendary  stories,  and  the  second 
notes  on  Nos.  1-644,  will  be  followed  by  a  third  containing  the  rest  of  the  notes  and  the 
Prolegomena.  The  whole  is  to  form  a  part  of  the  MeXeW,  which  Professor  Politis  is 
publishing  in  the  Maraslis  library.  The  appearance  of  these  books,  with  their  good  printing 
and  moderate  price,  is  due  to  the  enlightened  generosity  of  Mr.  Gregorios  Maraslis. 

The  traditional  stories  in  this  collection  are  both  from  published  and  from  oral 
sources.  The  latter  are  transcribed  as  they  were  told,  in  the  genuine  popular  language 
untouched  by  the  written  tradition,  and  more  or  less  coloured  by  the  peculiarities  of  the 
local  dialect.  Those  taken  from  printed  sources,  many  of  them  foreign,  have  been  recast 
in  the  popular  form,  in  which  they  might  have  been  recounted  by  peasants  using  their 
local  dialects.  These  latter  are  marked  with  an  asterisk.  This  distinction  will  no  doubt 
be  mentioned  in  the  forthcoming  Prolegomena  :  at  present  it  can  only  be  made  out  by 
noting  the  nature  of  the  source  as  given  in  the  notes.  It  is  obviously  of  capital  value  for 
anyone  who  would  use  the  book  as  material  for  the  study  of  the  dialects. 

The  traditions  are  arranged  under  twenty-nine  heads  : — legends  historical  and  local, 
legends  of  gods,  saints,  and  heroes,  of  the  stars  and  elements,  of  plants,  animals,  and  wild 
beasts,  of  dragons  and  serpents,  of  treasures  guarded  by  negroes,  of  ghosts  and  haunted 
places,  of  uncanny  creatures,  Kalikantzaroi,  Neraides  and  Lamias,  of  witches,  of  the  devil 
and  apparitions,  of  sicknesses,  of  the  fates,  of  corpses,  vampires,  death,  and  the  underworld, 
with  a  final  section  containing  aetiological  stories. 

Such  a  collection  cannot  from  the  nature  of  the  subject  be  complete,  and  anyone  who 
has  enjoyed  a  part  of  the  confidence  of  Greek  peasants  could  add  a  few  more  items,  but  it 
gives  samples  probably  of  every  kind  of  legend.  The  author  has  done  good  service,  not 
only  in  printing  the  large  number  of  legends  he  has  himself  collected,  but  in  gathering 
together  the  published  stories,  which  were  scattered  over  a  great  mass  of  literature,  much 
of  it  very  inaccessible.  The  skill,  with  which  he  has  retold  these  in  popular  form  restores 
to  them  much  of  their  life,  sadly  lost  in  foreign  books,  or  in  the  purified  language  of 
modern  Greek  writers. 

The  legends  themselves,  as  products  of  the  popular  Greek  fancy,  are  of  as  much 
interest  as  the  Romaic  folk-ballads,  and  sometimes  deal  with  the  same  subjects.  The 
taking  of  Saint  Sophia,  the  hero  Digenes,  the  woman  buried  beneath  the  bridge,  appear  in 
tradition  and  folksong  alike.  The  mass  of  material,  both  in  text  and  notes,  bearing  on 
popular  mythology  makes  the  book  indispensable  for  the  student  of  Greek  folklore,  and 
the  charm  of  the  stories  will  appeal  to  the  general  reader  with  some  knowledge  of  modern 
Greek.     The  notes  are  very  full,  and  embody  comparisons  and  illustrations  drawn  from  a 

wide  field. 


The  following  hooks  haoe  also  been  received : — 

Atkinson  (T.  D).    A  Glossary  of  Terms  used  in  English  Architecture.    Pp.  xxiv  +  320; 

265  cuts.     London  :  Methuen,  1906. 
Duff  (J.  W.).     Homer  and  Beowulf.     Pp.  25.     1906. 
Ferrero  (Gugl.).     The  Greatness  and  Decline  of  Rome.     Transl.  by  A.  E.  Zimmern. 

2  vols.,  pp.  viii  +  328,  vi  +  389.     London  :  Heinemann,  1907.     17s.  net. 
Gilliard  (Charles).     Quelques  Reformes  de  Solon.     Pp.  324.     Lausanne  :  Bridel,  1907. 
Hoste  (M.  R).     Nausicaa.     Pp.  xi  +  56.     London  :  Nutt,  1906. 
Juvenal.     Satires,  ed.  A.  F.  Cole.     Pp.  xii  +  382.     London  :  Dent,  1906. 
Plato.     Menexenus,   ed.  J.   A.   Shawyer.     Pp.   xxxi  +  36.      Oxford:    Clarendon   Press, 

1906.     2.s. 
Schmidt  (M.  C.  P.).     Kritik  der  Kritiken.     Pp.  37.     Leipzig  :  Diirr,  1906. 
Sophocles.     Antigone.     Transl.   by   R.  Whitelaw.     Pp.   1  +  56.     Oxford:    Clarendon 

Press,  1906. 

J.  H.  S.     Vol.  XXVII  (1907)  Pl.  XIII. 


J.  H.  S.     Vol.  XXVII  (1907)  Pl.  XIV. 





[Plates  XIII.,  XIV.] 

In  a  recent  number  of  the  Journal1  I  had  occasion  to  indicate  some  of 
the  difficulties  surrounding  the  identification  of  the  royal  portraits  that 
occur  on  silver  coins  accompanied  by  the  simple  inscription  BAZIAE2Z 
ANTloXoY-  The  object  of  the  article  in  question  was  to  advocate  a 
change  of  tactics  in  dealing  with  the  problem, — to  urge  the  desirability 
of  concentrating  attention  on  well-defined  groups  which  should  be  sub- 
jected to  a  close  and  comprehensive  scrutiny.  As  an  illustration  of  the  line  of 
treatment  proposed,  there  was  selected  for  detailed  examination  the  set  of 
coins  composed  of  tetrabrachius  on  which  the  diadem  worn  by  the  kino-  is 
furnished  Avith  wings.  While  certain  of  the  inferences  tentatively  suo-o-ested 
on  the  strength  of  this  examination  have  not  been  universally  accepted,2 
the  more  positive  and  important  of  the  conclusions  reached  remain  uncon- 
troverted.  I  would  single  out  the  following  points  as  being  now  fairly  well 
established  : — (1)  A  large  class  of  coins  previously  assigned  to  Antiochus  Hierax, 
or  alternatively  to  Antiochus  III.,  really  belongs  to  Antiochus  II.  (2)  The 
pieces  of  which  it  consists  give  us  a  portrait  of  Antiochus  II.  which  Ave  may 
confidently  adopt  as  a  '  standard  '  likeness,  a  criterion  that  in  his  case  Avas  not 
previously  available  for  purposes  of  classification.3  (3)  Most  of  the  gold  money 
of  Antiochus  II.  Avas  struck  in  Central  Asia  at  a  mint  or  mints  Avhich  had  also 
been  active  under  his  father.  (4)  Whether  Ave  shall  ever  be  able  to  recognize 
the  portrait  of  Hierax  or  no,  the  majority  of  the  tetradrachms  with  the  winged 
head  form  part  of  his  coinage,  having  been  minted  at  Alexandria  Troas. 
(5)  These  tetradrachms,  taken  in  conjunction  with  a  number  of  others 
of  similar  'spread  '  character,  issued  from  the  mints  of  Cyzicus,  Lampsacus, 
and  Abydus,  gives  us  a  fair  idea  of  the  '  sphere  of  influence '  which  Hierax 
dominated  before  229  B.C. 

AYhere  a  first  experiment  has  proved  so  fruitful  in  interest,  it  is  perhaps 
justifiable  to  embark  upon  a  second.  And  there  lies  ready  to  hand 
another  group  of  coins  sufficiently  marked  in  character  and  sufficient lv 
limited  in  extent  to  make  investigation  comparatively  easy.  I  mean  the 
rare  tetradrachms  which  have  on  the  reverse  a  figure  of  Heracles  resting. 
The  hero  is  seated  with  his  lion's  skin  beneath  him.  while  his  right  hand 
grasps  the  upper  end  of  his  club,  which  stands  upright  in  front  of  him. 
This  type  constitutes  a  striking  innovation  in  the  coinage  of  the  Seleucidae. 
It   is    intrusive,    in    the    sense   that    the    familiar    figure  of  Apollo   on    the 

1  J. U.S.  xxiii.  pp.  !<2  fl'.  J. U.S.  xxv.   pp.  101  ri'.,  and  H.  von  Fritze  in 

2  Discussion  lias  chiefly   centred   round  the       Berl.  Phil.   Wcchenschr.  1906,  Xo.  27  (p.  731). 
portrait'  of  Hierax;    see  A.   J.  13.  Wace  in  *-See  Bunbury, Num.  Chrdn.  1883,  p.  7-. 

H.S. — VOL.  XXVII.  L 



omphalos  is  speedily  restored  to  its  place  of  honour.  That  the  variation  was 
a  local  as  well  as  a  passing  phase  of  numismatic  fashion  was  long  ago 
pointed  out  by  Dr.  Imhoof-Blumer,  whose  single  remark  upon  the  subject 
is  the  truest  and  most  valuable  observation  that  has  so  far  been  made 
about  these  tetradrachms :  they  were  all  struck  in  Ionia  or  in  Aeolis.4 

Other  numismatists  besides  Imhoof  have  had  their  attention  turned  to 
our  group.5  In  no  case,  however,  have  the  materials  for  comparison  and 
study  been  anything  like  complete.  As  a  consequence  the  results  obtained 
have  been  inconclusive  or  unreliable.  Bunbury  and  Babelon,  for  instance, 
were  at  pains  to  argue  (as  agaiust  Gardner)  that  the  type  of  the  seated 
Heracles  was  peculiar  to  Antiochus  II.  So  far  as  the  coins  then  known  are 
concerned,  it  is  certain  they  were  right.  But  the  discovery  of  the  piece 
which  stands  first  upon  our  list  has  given  an  entirely  different  aspect  to  the 
question,  and  has  at  the  same  time  finally  disproved  the  view  of  Six,  who 
believed  that  the  whole  of  the  Heracles  tetradrachms  belonged  to  the  rei^m 
of  Antiochus  Hierax,  and  that  they  represented  the  coinage  of '  Alexander, 
brother  of  Laodice,'  having  been  issued  by  him  while  he  was  holding  Sardis 
in  the  interests  of  his  'nephew.'0  The  identity  of  the  head  upon  the 
following  is  so  clear  that  we  need  not  hesitate  to  attribute  it  to  the  first  of  the 

Antiochus  I. 

I.7  Head    of   Antiochus   I.,    r.,    dia- 
demed ;  border  of  dots. 

BAZIAEQZ  Heracles,  naked,  seated 
ANTloXoY  1.  on  rock,  his  hair 
bound  with  taenia ;  underneath 
him  is  his  lion's  skin,  one  end  of 
which  is  brought  up  so  as  partially 
to  cover  his  r.  thigh  ;  his  r.  hand 
grasps  the  handle  of  his  club,  which 
stands  upright  in  front  of  him, 
while  his  1.  is  placed  behind  him 
on  the  rock  ;  beneath s  A ;  to  1., 
beyond  inscr.,  one-handled  vase 
r.,  below  which,  one  above  another, 
(51  and  f^ . 

PI.  XIII.,  5=B.M.= Greek  Coins  of  a    WeH-hnoum  Amateur,  Lot  230  (PL  vii)  =  Rcgling, 
Sammlung  Warren,  p.  202,  Xo.  1297  (Taf.  xxx.). 

4  Mon nates  grecques,  p.  426.  Cf.  Bunbury, 
Num.  Chron.  1883,  p.  78,  footnote. 

5  Gardner,  Scleucid  Kings  of  Syria,  pp.  xv.  f  ; 
Bunbury,  I.e.  pp.  77  ff. ;  Babelon,  fioi&de  Syric, 
pp.  lx.  ff.  ;  Six,  Num.  Chron.  1S98,  pp.  233  f., 

6  See  J. U.S.  xxiii.  p.  116. 

7  For  convenience  of  reference  the  coins  in  the 
particular  group  under  examination  are 
numbered  consecutively,  irrespective  of  the 
king  whose  portrait  they  may  bear.  All  of  them 

are  Euboic-Attic  tetradrachms.  Where  different 
specimens  are  catalogued  under  the  same 
number,  it  is  to  be  understood  that  they  are 
from  the  same  dies  on  both  sides.  Where  the 
mathematical  sign  of  equality  is  employed,  it 
means  not  merely  that  the  specimens  thus  con- 
nected are  from  the  same  dies,  but  that  they  are 

8  The  use  of  the  word  '  beneath  '  in  a  descrip- 
tion implies  that  there  is  no  exergual  line. 


This  remarkable  tetradrachm,  formerly  in  the  Warren  Collection,  is  now 
in  the  British  Museum.  Mr.  Talbot  Ready,  through  whose  agency  it  was  put 
upon  the  London  market,  informs  me  that  it  was  found  some  seven  years 
ago  in  the  Lebanon.  Though  it  has  been  published  twice  previously,  it  has 
not  yet  attracted  the  notice  it  deserves.  As  a  glance  at  the  Plate  will  show, 
the  russred  features  of  Antiochus  Soter  are  unmistakable.  The  coin  was 
therefore  struck  not  later  than  261  B.C.  And  it  came  from  the  mint  of  Cyme  in 
Aeolis.  The  one-handled  vase  on  the  reverse  would  of  itself  have  been  sufficient 
to  prove  that  this  Avas  so.  It  was  the  '  town-arms '  or  Trapdcnj/xov  of  Cyme. 
As  such,  it  figures  as  a  symbul  on  silver  coins  of  various  periods,  notably  on 
tetradrachms  with  the  types  of  Alexander  the  Great,9  and  on  the  familiar 
'spread'  tetradrachms  of  the  second  century  B.C.;  on  Plate  XIIL,  2,  for 
instance,  it  will  be  seen  between  the  legs  of  the  horse  on  the  reverse.  On  bronze 
coins  it  occurs  not  merely  as  a  symbol  but  also  as  a  type ;  in  such  cases  it 
shares  the  usual  fate  of  the  irapda-qfiov  and  is  relegated  to  the  reverse,10  as  on 
Plate  XIIL,  1.  Standing  alone,  then,  the  one-handled  vase  upon  No.  1  would 
have  furnished  ample  evidence  of  origin.  But  there  is  a  link  that  is  even 
closer  and  more  interesting.  The  two  monograms  that  are  placed  below  it 
obviously  denote  the  names  of  magistrates,  and  one  of  them  is  very  uncom- 
mon. Now  exactly  the  same  combination  appears  on  the  reverse  of  an  autono- 
mous silver  coin  of  Cyme,  which  is  also,  as  it  happens,  in  the  British  Museum. 
The  following  is  a  description. 

Head  of  the  Amazon  Cyme  r. ;  hair  I  KY  (above)  Bridled  horse  standing- 
rolled  and  tied  with  riband ;  |  r.,  with  1.  forefoot  raised  ;  between 
border  of  dots.  its  legs,  fft;  in  front,  p|. 

PI.  XIII.,  6-B.M.C.  Troas,  Aeolis,  and  Lesbos,  p.  109,  No.  58  (PI.  xx.  16). 

This  piece,  which  has  a  weight  of  10-47  grammes,  is  one  of  a  very  rare 
class.  It  was  originally  published  in  1892  by  Mr.  Warwick  Wroth,  and  was 
regarded  by  him  as  a  didrachm  of  the  Persic  standard,  probably  belonging  to 
the  period  from  250  to  190  B.C.11  Curiously  enough  a  second  example,  struck 
from  different  dies  and  weighing  only  9'36  grammes,  was  made  known  in  the 
same  year  by  M.  Babelon,  who  considered  it  to  be  a  light  Rhodian  tridrachm, 
minted  between  258  and  202  B.C.12  A  third  specimen,  bearing  different 
monograms  and  weighing  10'55  grammes,  had  been  described  nine  years  earlier 
by  Dr.  Imhoof-Blumer,13  who,  however,  expressed  no  opinion  as  to  its  age ; 
it  was  then  in  the  cabinet  of  Sir  Edward  Bunbury,  and  is  illustrated  in  the 
Sale  Catalogue  of  his  collection.14  It  will  be  noted  that  there  has  beeu  a 
tendency  to  assign  this  autonomous  group  to  the  days  uhen  the  hegemony 

"  Miiller,  Nos.  943  IF.  i*.  12. 

10  Coin  Types,  pp.  123  II'.  u  Moimaus  greeqws,  p.  272. 

ii  Num.  Chron,  1882,  p.  17.  ;   s  Portion,  Lot  131  Plate  II.'. 

)-  R  c.    Num.  1892,    p.    116,    No.    12,    PI. 

L    2 


of  Western  Asia  Minor  had  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  Seleucidae.  The 
connection  now  established  with  No.  1  of  the  Heracles  series  pushes  it  back 
to  the  reign  of  Antiochus  I.  It  is  true  that  the  identity  of  monograms  may 
be  a  coincidence  ;  in  certain  Hellenic  cities  the  monetary  magistracies  would 
seem  to  have  been  hereditary.15  But  I  think  a  comparison  of  the  two  pieces 
concerned — they  are  placed  side  by  side  upon  Plate  XIII. — will  convince  any 
experienced  eye  that  they  are  practically  contemporaneous.  Special  signi- 
ficance attaches  to  the  presence,  on  the  obverse  of  both,  of  the  border  of  dots, 
an  adjunct  that  fell  into  disfavour  in  this  part  of  the  Hellenic  world  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.16  It  may  appear  strange  that  regal  and 
autonomous  coins, — of  different  standards  too, — should  have  been  issued  from 
the  same  mint  in  one  and  the  same  year.  But,  although  we  know  too  little  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  time  to  hazard  an  explanation,  attention  will  be  drawn 
presently  to  what  is  possibly  a  parallel.  Meanwhile  we  must  content  ourselves 
with  noting  that  the  gap  in  the  mintage  of  Cyme  is  less  absolute  than  was 
formerly  supposed.1' 

Apart  from  this  fitful  and  uncertain  gleam  of  light,  the  discovery  of 
No.  1  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  discussion  of  the  remaining  tetra- 
drachms  of  the  Heracles  group.  Although  these  have  hitherto  been  assigned 
by  general  consent  to  Antiochus  II.,  they  fell  to  him  only  as  ultimas  hacrcs. 
'.It  must  be  admitted,'  says  Bunbury,  'that  the  reasons  for  attributing  this 
particular  group  of  coins  to  the  second  Antiochus,  instead  of  his  predecessor 
or  successor,  are  extremely  slight.' 1S  Noav  we  are  for  the  first  time  in  a 
position  to  provide  a  solid  basis  for  the  attribution,  and  so  to  secure  a  fresh 
set  of  well-authenticated  portraits  of  the  king.  That  the  whole  series  is 
homogeneous  does  not  admit  of  doubt,  and  will  become  even  more  evident 
a?  we  proceed.  This  being  so,  the  identification  of  the  head  of  Antiochus  I. 
gives  us  a  fixed  point.  The  younger  head  can  only  be  that  of  his  son,  and 
the  probable  period  of  issue  is  circa  201  B.C.  The  new  king  was  at  that 
time  twenty-four,  an  age  that  agrees  perfectly  with  his  appearance,  not  indeed 
in  all  of  the  portraits,  but  certainly  in  those  of  them  that  wre  can,  upon 
other  grounds,  accept  as  being  'standard'  likenesses.  The  nature  and  cause 
of  the  variations  hinted  at  will  become  apparent  immediately. 

Inclusive  of  No.  1,  I  have  succeeded  in  bringing  together  twenty-five 
different  varieties  of  Heracles  tetradrachms,  several  varieties  being  repre- 
sented by  more  than  one  specimen.  It  is  an  agreeable  duty  to  acknowledge 
the  kindness  and  courtesy  of  owners  and  custodians  who  have  furnished  me 
with  casts.  And  it  is  a  further  pleasure  to  add  that  the  cost  of  supplying 
adequate  illustrations  has  been  met  by  a  grant  from  the  Research  Fund  of 
the  Carnegie  Trust  for  the  Universities  of  Scotland.     Some  general  remarks 

15  See ./. TT. S.  xxiii,  p.  101.  and  190  B.C.   the  city  'docs  not  seem  to  have 

16  J. II  S.   xxiii.  p.  115 — where,  by  the  way,  struck    any    money    whatever.'     {Hist.    Num. 
there  is  an   obvious   misprint  of  'second'  for  p.  479.) 

'third.'.  1S  Num.  Chron.  18.83,  p.  77. 

17  In  1887  Head  remarked  that  between  500 


will  facilitate  the  proper  understanding  of  the  detailed  descriptions  that  are 
to  follow.  To  begin  with,  it  will  be  found  that  the  Heracles  coins  of 
Antiochus  II.  group  themselves  naturally  into  three  classes,  each  class 
characterized  by  a  distinctive  mark  or  marks  enabling  us  to  assign  it  to  a 
particular  mint.  A  peculiarity  common  to  all  three  classes  calls  for  very  special 
notice.  At  the  head  of  each  are  ranged  one  or  two  pieces  unexceptionable 
in  style  and  execution.  Those  that  succeed  them  are  simply  more  or  less 
degenerate  copies.  The  result  is  an  apparently  wide  variety  of  portraiture,  the 
real  meaning  of  which  only  becomes  intelligible  when  we  have  something 
like  a  complete  sequence  before  us.  In  every  case  the  earliest  coins  were 
produced  by  skilled  engravers  ;  as  the  original  dies  wore  out  or  broke,  they 
were  replaced  by  imitations  which  betray  the  hand  of  inexperienced  workmen, 
but  which  were  destined  in  their  turn  to  serve  as  models  for  even  lower  depths 
of  deterioration.  We  cannot,  of  course,  be  certain  in  any  instance  that  we 
possess  all  the  links  in  the  chain.  But  the  surviving  evidence  is  quite 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  broad  truth  of  the  statement  just  made.  The 
same  phenomenon  has  been  observed  elsewhere,  in  connection  with  the 
money  of  cities  that  have  no  continuous  minting  tradition  stretching  back  to 
fairly  early  times.  Crete  supplies  quite  a  number  of  examples.10  And  it  is 
significant  that  the  process  described  manifests  itself  very  clearly  in  the 
small  group  of  autonomous  coins  of  Cyme  to  which  we  had  occasion  to 
allude  a  page  or  two  back;20  the  British  Museum  piece  is  admirably 
executed,  that  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale  is  not  nearly  so  satisfactory,  the 
Bunbury  specimen  is  a  long  way  behind  both.  It  would  seem  as  if  cities 
that  took  to  minting  at  a  comparatively  late  epoch  were  in  the  habit  of 
importing  from  well-established  centres,  not  trained  workmen  and  designers, 
but  pattern  dies;  these  dies  were  used  as  long  as  might  be;  when  they 
ceased  to  be  serviceable,  recourse  was  had  to  the  talent  of  local  'artists.' 
However  that  may  be,  the  phenomenon  we  have  been  discussing  introduces  a 
fresh  complication  into  the  problem  of  Seleucid  portraiture.  It  is  obvious 
that,  where  it  occurs,  the  only  likenesses  we  can  regard  as  typical  are  those 
that  ojDen  a  series.  One  other  remark  is  worth  making  before  we  enter  on  a 
consideration  of  the  individual  varieties.  The  list  will  be  found  to  illustrate 
two  of  the  technical  points  to  which  attention  was  drawn  in  my  former 
paper.21  The  border  of  dots  on  the  obverse  is,  as  we  might  expect  from  the 
date  of  issue,  universal ;  and  the  obverse  die  had,  as  a  rule,  a  much  lonsrer 
life  than  the  reverse.  Having  thus  cleared  the  ground,  we  may  proceed  to  our 

19  See  Svoronos,  Numismatiquc  de  la  Crite  See  supra,  p.  147. 

ancienne,  Atlas,  passim.  -l  J.H.S.  xxiii.  pp.  99  f.  and  p.  103. 



Antiochus  II. 

Class  A. — Struck  at  Cyme. 

Head   of    Antiochus   II., 
denied  ;  border  of  dots. 

Subdivision  (a). 
.,    dia- 

Pl.  XIII. 

BAIIAEQI  Heracles  seated  1.  on 
ANTIoXoY  rock  as  in  No.  1;  no 
taenia;  although  there  is  no  ex. 
line,  the  ground  is  indicated  run- 
nine  from  the  edge  of  the  rock  below 
the  hero's  feet ;  beneath,  one- 
handled  vase  1.,  and  p|;  between 
legs  of  Heracles,  A  ',  to  r.  of  lower 
part  of  rock,  jh. 
7  =  Greek  Coins  in  the  Hunter  tan  Collection,  Vol.  III.  p.  19,  No.  1. 

3.  Similar. 

PI.  XIII.,  8  =  Berlin. 



Subdivision  (J3). 

but  4^  beneath    r.  end    of 

Head    of 
denied ; 

Antiochus    II. 
border  of  dots. 


Pl.  xill.,  9-B.M.C.  p.  14,  No.  8. 
5.  Similar. 

BAIIAEQI  Heracles  seated  1.  on 
ANTIoXoY  rock  as  on  No.  1  ;  he 
wears  taenia,  and  there  is  no  at- 
tempt to  indicate  the  ground ;  to  1., 
beyond  inscr.,  one-handled  vase22  1., 
with  traces  of  monogram  below 
(A  '•)  i  to  1.  of  lower  end  of  club, 
^  ;  to  r.  of  lower  part  of  rock,  £J2. 

BASIAEQE     Similar  type;  to  r.   of 
ANTloXo[Y]  lower  part  of  rock  $Jj ; 

no  symbol  and  no  other  monograms 


PI.  XIII.,  \0  =  Auctions-Catalog  Hirsch,  XIII.  p.  277,  No.  4439. 

Similar ;  style  slightly  less  refined  ; 
dots  in  border  larger. 


BAIIAEQZ  Similar  type;  style 
ANTIoXoY  slightly  less  refined; 
to  1.,  beyond  inscr.,  one-handled 
vase  1.  ;  beneath,  E  ffl  ;  to  1.  of  lower 
end  of  club,  A ;  to  r.  of  lower  part 
of  rock  ^. 
11  =  Berlin  (Irahoof,  Mown,  grccq.,  p.  236,  No.  28)  ;  Berlin  (Lobbecke). 

22  Here    (and    in    several   other    cases)   my 
description  differs  in   some   details   from   that 

already   published.      All  such  corrections  and 
additions  have  been  most  carefully  verified. 



7.  Similai 

B  A  Z I A  E  Q  Z     Similar  type  ;  to  1.,  be- 
A  N  T I  o  X  o  Y     yond  inscr.,  one-handled 
vase   (?) ;   beneath,    ^  J    no   other 
monograms  visible. 
PI.  XIII.,  12  =  Paris  (Babelon,  Rois  dc  Syrie,  p.  28,  No.  207). 

8.  Similar ;  style  again    less  refined ; 
features  larger  and  coarser. 

PI.  XIII.,   13  =  Berlin    (Prokesch) 

B  A  Z I A  E  Q  Z     Similar  type  ;  to  1.,  be- 
A  N T I  o  X  o  Y     yond  inscr., one-handled 
vase    r.  ;    beneath,  -41    ail(l    $  '■> Z3 
to  1.  of  lower  end  of  club,  A . 
Berlin   (Lobbecke)  =  Num.    Chron.    1883,    PL    iv.    4 

9.  Similar;  but  features  considerably 

PI.  XIII.,  14  =  Copenhagen. 

10.  Same  die  as  No.  9. 

Berlin  (Prokesch). 

BAZIAE2Z      Similar     type;     style 
A  N  T I  o  X  o  Y      rather  better  ;  to  L,  be- 
yond inscr.,   one-handled   vase    1. ; 
beneath  $  and    $  ;  to  1.  of  lower 
end  of  club,  IY1 . 

BAZIAEQZ     Similar  type;  to  1.,  be- 
ANTIoXoY     yond  inscr., one-handled 
vase  r.  and,  below  it,    ITI  (?) ;    be- 
neath, d). 

This  completes  our  list  of  the  varieties  included  in  Class  A,  and  it  may 
be  convenient  to  glance  back  for  a  moment  and  take  stock  of  its  more 
prominent  features.  In  view  of  the  testimony  adduced  in  dealing  with  No.  1, 
the  attribution  of  the  whole  of  these  tetradrachms  to  Cyme  surely  needs  no 
justification.  The  one-handled  vase  is  clearly  discernible  on  the  reverses  of 
all  save  No.  5  and  No.  7.  And  in  each  of  those  cases  the  character  of  the  obverse 
forbids  us  to  separate  the  piece  from  that  which  immediately  precedes  it.24 
Besides,  even  as  exceptions  they  can  be  readily  accounted  for  :  on  No.  5  the 
part  of  the  field  usually  occupied  by  the  mint-mark  is  off  the  Jian,  and  on 
No.  7  it  is  double-striking  that  has  rendered  the  symbol  unrecognizable.  Our 
scrutiny  of  the  dies  has  revealed  eight  different  obverses  and  nine  different 
reverses.  Taking  the  latter  first,  we  may  note  that  the  average  level  of 
execution  is  decidedly  high.  There  is  none  that  is  not  at  least  passably  good. 
Further,  they  fall  into  two  groups  corresponding  to  the  subdivisions  indicated 
in  the  list.  Nos.  2  and  3,  which  belong  to  Subdivision  (a),  are  ultimately 
connected  by  the  identity  of  the  monograms  that  they  bear,  while  other  details, 

-3  The  precise  details  of  this  monogram  are  a 

little  doubtful.     They  are  quite  clear  on  No.  9. 

w  The  obverses  of  Nos.  4  and  5  (.Plate  XIII., 

9  ami  10)  are  almost  certainly  from  the  >ann 
hand  ;  and  so  with  Nos.  o"  and  7  (I'laik  XIII., 
11  and  12). 


such  as  the  placing  of  the  symbol  in  the  exergue  and  the  attempt  to  indicate 
the  ground,  suggest  that  both  are  from  the  hand  of  the  same  skilled 
engraver.  The  remainder  of  the  reverses  present  analogous  points  of  resem- 
blance not  merely  to  one  another  but  also  to  the  coin  of  Antiochus  I.  Heracles, 
for  instance,  wears  a  taenia,  and  the  mint-mark,  instead  of  being  placed  in  the 
exergue,  is  put  in  the  field  1.  The  style  varies  too  much  to  admit  of  our 
assigning  the  whole  set  to  a  single  engraver,  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  one  of 
them  has  been  a  model  for  the  rest.  It  has  to  be  added  that,  while  the  bulk 
of  the  monograms  undoubtedly  denote  magistrates'  names,  there  are  two  of 
tli  em  to  which  a  special  character  seems  to  attach  ;  some  form  of  <fe  occurs 
on  every  reverse  die  from  No.  1  to  No.  10,  and  A  appears  on  Nos.  2,  3,  4.  6, 
and  8.25 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  obverses,  we  are  impressed  with  the  large  propor- 
tion of  work  that  is  almost  first-rate.  Nos.  2  and  3,  which  belong  to  Sub- 
division (a)  (Plate  XII.,  7  and  8),  and  Nos.  4  and  5,  which  stand  at  the  head 
of  Subdivision  (/3)  (Plate  XIII.,  9  and  10),  might  all  have  served  as  '  patterns.' 
The  restraint  and  refinement  they  display  are  very  noticeable.  A  coarser 
touch  obtrudes  itself  in  Nos.  6  and  7  (Plate  XIII.,  11  and  12),  and  this 
becomes  more  pronounced  in  No.  8  (Plate  XIII.,  13).  It  extends  even  to 
the  dots  that  form  the  border.  Finally,  on  the  die  that  is  used  for  the  obverse 
of  No.  9  (Plate  XIII.,  14)  and  No.  10,  the  size  of  the  neck  and  chin  is 
suddenly  so  much  reduced  that  the  whole  cast  of  the  young  king's  features 
undergoes  a  change.  One  is  almost  tempted  to  think  that  the  engraver  of 
this  die  must  have  had  before  him — in  addition  to  No.  7  or  No.  8 — one  of 
the  prototypes  or  'pattern'  pieces  belonging  to  Class  C  (Plate  XIV.,  10f.), 
and  must  have  endeavoured  to  reconcile  what  seemed  to  him  to  be  conflicting 
likenesses.  At  all  events,  a  survey  of  Class  A  as  arranged  upon  Plate 
XIII.  discloses  a  great  contrast  between  its  two  extremes.  Yet  the  declension 
is  not  nearly  so  rapid  or  so  striking  as  in  either  of  the  two  classes  that  are 
still  to  come. 

Antiochus  II. 

Class  B. — Struck  at  Myrina. 

Subdivision  (a). 

11.  Head  of  Antiochus   II.,   r.,  dia- 
demed ;  border  of  dots. 

PI.  XIV.,  A,  -B.M.C.  p.  15  No.  9. 

12.  Similar  type  ;  style  much  coarser; 
dots  in  border  larger. 

BAZIAEQZ     Heracles   seated   1.   on 
ANTloXoy     rock,  as  on  No.  1;  to 

1.,  beyond  inscr.,  amphora ;   to  r.  of 

lower  part  of  rock,  fa. 

Similar,    with   ex.   line;   style   much 
coarser;  no  monogram  to  r.  of  rock 
but  in  ex.,   ft  . 
PI.  XIV.,  5=B.M.C.  p.  15,  No.  10  (Whittall);  St.  Petersburg  (Hermitage). 

25  Its   absence  from  Nos.    5  and  7  may  be       part  of  the  field  is  off  the  flan. 
only  apparent.     In  both  cases  a  considerable 



13.   Head  of   Antiochus  II 
denied  ;  border  of  dots. 

Petrowicz  Coll. 

Subdivision  (ft). 

dia-      BAIIAEQZ     Heracles   seated   1.    on 
ANTloXoY    rock,  as  on  No.  1;   to 
i\,   beyond    inscr.,    amphora ;     be- 
neath, jji  and  head  of   spear   (or 
arrow)  r. 
Num.  Chron.,  1883,  PI.  iv.  5  (Bunbury)  ;  Vienna. 

14.  Same  die  as  No.  13.  |  Similar. 

PI.  XIV.,  6=  Leake,  Nwm.  Hell.  Suppl.  p.  4.-15 

15.  Similar ;  style  much  inferior.  |  Similar. 

P.M.  (Whittall)  ;  Berlin  (Lijbbecke). 

16.  Same  die  as  No.  15. 

PI.  XIV.,  7  =  B.M. 


Same  die  as  No.  16. 

17.  Similar;    head    larger;    features 
PI.  XIV.,  8  =  Cambridge  (McClean)  ;  Berlin  (Prokesch). 

IS.  Same  die  as  No.  17.  |  Similar. 

PI.  XIV.,  9  =  Berlin  ;  Paris  (Babelon,  Eois  de  Syrie,  p.  28,  No.  208). 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  link  between  the  various  members  of 
Class  B  is  the  presence  of  an  amphora  in  the  field.  The  analogy  with 
Class  A  makes  it  natural  to  interpret  this  as  a  mint-mark,  and  the  clue  thus 
given  is  easy  to  follow  up.  At  Myrina  a  similar  amphora  was  used  as  a  symbol 
on  tetradrachms  with  the  types  of  Alexander  the  Great.'27  It  occurs  in  a  like 
capacity  on  the  large  '  spread '  pieces  issued  during  the  second  century  B.C., 
as  will  be  seen  from  the  fine  specimen  figured  on  Plate  XIV".,  2.  It  was, 
in  fact,  the  '  town-arms '  of  Myrina,2S  and  as  such  it  supplies  a  reverse  type 
for  bronze  coins  of  the  third  and  second  centuries  B.C.  :  witness  the  example 
reproduced  on  Plate  XIV.,  1.  It  is  true  that  an  amphora  is  a  more  common 
numismatic  object  than  a  one-handled  vase.  The  attribution  of  Class  B  to 
Myrina  may,  therefore,  for  the  moment  seem  less  certain  than  was  that  of 
Class  A  to  Cyme.     But  the  fullest  confirmation  will  be  forthcoming  presently. 

The  subdivision  of  Class  B  into  two  sections  was  suggested  by  an  exami- 
nation of  the  coins  themselves  ;  it  is  evident  that  there  were  two  '  pattern ' 
pieces  of  somewhat  different  styles,  and  that  each  of  these  was  made  the  basis 
of  imitations.  Subdivision  (a)  contains  only  two  varieties — the  prototype  and 
an  inferior  copy.     That  this  was  the  relation  between  them  will,  I  think,  be 

:ti  When  Leake  secured  his  electrotype,  this 
coin  was  in  the  Borrell  Collection.  I  have 
been  unable  to  ascertain  its  present  whereabouts. 

'-"  Midler.  No:  933,  ff. 

88  See    Wroth,    B.M.C.    Troas,    Aeolis,    and 
Lesbos,  p.  lvi.     Cf.  supra,  p.  147. 


conceded  by  any  one  who  looks  carefully  at  the  obverses  as  they  are  shown  on 
Plate  XIV.,  4  and  5.  The  testimony  of  the  reverses  is  less  clear.  The 
presence  of  the  exergual  line  and  of  the  magistrate's  monogram  beneath  it, 
as  well  as  the  absence  of  $ji,  proves  that  the  reverse  of  No.  12 — the  execution 
of  which,  by  the  way,  is  particularly  coarse — was  not  modelled  upon  No.  11 
alone.  The  engraver  had  also  before  him  one  of  the  coins  belonging  to 
Class  C  ;  compare,  for  instance,  Plate  XIV.,  11.  At  the  same  time  he  did 
keep  No.  11  in  view,  as  is  clear  from  the  position  of  the  amphora  in  the  field 
and  from  the  fact  that  it  is  a  rock  on  which  Heracles  sits.29  It  is  worth 
noting  that  No.  11  bears  no  local  magistrate's  signature  at  all,  for  (h  cannot 
be  a  local  monogram,  seeing  that  it  is  found  on  eveiyone  of  the  corresponding 
coins  from  Cyme. 

The  monogram  just  mentioned  is  prominent  on  all  the  coins  belonging  to 
Subdivision  (/3)  at  Myrina.  The  latter  comprises  six  distinct  varieties, 
including  five  reverses.  The  intimate  connection  between  these  reverses 
does  not  admit  of  doubt.  Monogram  and  mint-mark  always  occupy  the  same 
position,  and  beside  the  monogram  there  is  always  a  spear-head  pointing 
towards  the  r.  The  last-mentioned  feature  is  at  first  sight  rather  puzzling. 
Six  made  it  a  reason  for  assigning  the  coins  to  Sardis.30  All  becomes  plain, 
however,  if  we  realize  that  it  is  not  a  mint-mark  but  a  magistrate's  symbol. 
In  fact,  if  we  so  interpret  it,  we  get  the  promised  confirmation  of  our 
attribution  of  Class  B  to  Myrina.  The  oldest  known  coins  of  this  city  are 
small  silver  pieces  of  a  high  degree  of  rarity.  The  following  is  a  description 
of  one  now  in  the  Fitzwilliam  Museum  at  Cambridge;  it  weighs  1*88 

Head  of  Athena  r.,  wearing  Corinthian      M  Y  Head    of  Artemis,  three-quarter 
helmet.  face  towards  1.,  wearing  earring 

and  necklace  ;  quiver  at  r.  shoul- 
der ;  in  field  r.,  head  of  spear  (or 

PI.  XIV.,  3  =  Leake,  Num.  Hell.  p.  85. 

The  British  Museum  possesses  one,  the  Berlin  Museum  two — a  precisely 
similar  piece  (from  the  Imhoof  Collection)  weighing  150  grammes,  and 
another  (from  the  Lobbecke  Collection)  weighing  1*75  grammes  and 
differing  from  the  preceding  only  in  the  absence  of  the  quiver.31  These 
coins  have  been  assigned,  on  .grounds  of  style,  to  the  early  part  of  the 
third  century  B.C.  If  my  interpretation  of  the  spear-head  be  correct, 
it    enables    us    to    date    them    more    definitely    still    {circa   261   B.C.),  and 

2a  See  infra,  pp.  156  f.  Imhoof-Blumer,  Z.  f.  N.  xx.  p.  282,  where  the 

30  Num.  Chron.  1898,  p.  233.     His  view  was  Lobbecke  coin  is  figured  (PL  x.  21).     There  is 

that  the   whole  of  the  Heracles  tetradrachms  another — according  to  Imhoof,  a  slightly  earlier 

were  struck  in  the  Sardian  mint,  but  that  they  — group  with  the  same  types,  but  without  the 

also  liore  the  symbols  of  some  of  the  cities  in  spear-head  ;  two  specimens  described  in  Z.f.  N. 

which  they  were  intended  to  circulate,  such  as  iii.  pp.  321  f.,  weigh  1*85  and  1  "80  grammes 

Cyme  and  Phocaea.  respectively;  cp.  B.M.C.  ibid.  No.   1. 
81  See    B.M.C.    Lycia,  etc.,   p.   69,    No.   2; 


also  provides  us  with  the  parallel  which  was  spoken  of  above  in  discussing 
the  curious  but  unmistakable  link  between  autonomous  and  regal  money  at 
Cyme.82  If  the  Cymaean  coins  are  Persic  didrachms,  these  may  be 
Persic  diobols. 

There  is  little  more  to  be  said  about  the  reverses  belonging  to  Subdivision 
(ft).  They  are  all  fairly  well  executed,  perhaps  the  least  satisfactory  being 
that  which  is  associated  in  No.  14  with  the  'pattern'  obverse.  But  they 
present  one  point  of  considerable  technical  interest.  In  Nos.  15  and  16 
we  have  an  example  of  the  same  reverse  die  combined  with  two  different 
obverses.  This  is  an  inversion  of  the  rule  that  is  general  here  and  elsewhere 
in  the  Seleucid  series.33  An  explanation  may  possibly  be  found  in  the  compara- 
tively low  relief  of  the  obverses  concerned :  the  dies  would  be  more  liable  to 
breakage.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  circumstance  is  important  as  establishing  an 
intimate  connection  between  two  portraits  that  we  might  otherwise  have 
suspected  of  representing  different  individuals  (Plate  XIV.,  7  and  8).  We 
may  now  safely  attribute  the  lack  of  resemblance  between  them  to  the  fact 
that  both  are  somewhat  clumsy  copies  of  the  '  pattern '  (Plate  XIV.,  6).  As 
for  the  '  pattern '  itself,  it  is — like  the  corresponding  head  in  Sub-division  (a) 
— quite  a  creditable  piece  of  work.  The  artists  who  cut  those  dies  had  a 
conception  of  the  features  of  Antiochus  II.  that  does  not  differ  markedly 
from  the  ideal  expressed  on  the  best  executed  pieces  of  Class  A,  and  that  is 
also  easily  reconcilable  with  the  more  realistic  '  standard  likeness '  discussed 
in  my  former  paper.34  In  this  respect  they  form  a  contrast  to  the  engraver 
whose  work  has  next  to  be  described. 

Antiochus  II. 
Glass  C. —  Struck  at  Phocaea. 

19.  Head    of  Antiochus   II.,   r.,  dia 
denied  ;  border  of  dots. 

B  A 1 1 A  E  Q I     Heracles  1.  as  in  No.  1 ; 

ANTloXoy     but  his  seat,  instead  of 
being    a    rough    square    rock,    is 
shaped  like  a  tub  or  cauldron ;  in 
ex.,   £     and    H\35 
PI.  XIV.,  10  =  B.M.C.  p.  8,  No.  2  ('Antiochus  I.'). 

20.  Similar.  |  Similar. 

PI.  XIV.,  11  =  Paris  (Babelon,  Eois  dc  Syrie,  p.  28,  No.  209). 

21.  Same  die  as  No.  20.  |  Similar. 

Petrowicz  Coll.  =  Bunbury  Sale  Catalogue,  Second  Portion,  Lot  454  (PL  iv  . 

22.  Similar;  of  much  inferior  style;      BAIIAEQZ     Similar  type ;  of  much 

ANT  I  oXoY     inferior  style;  no  taenia 
visible  ;  in  ex.,  A  and  5  • 

dots  in  border  larger. 

PI.  XIV.,  12  =  Vienna. 

a-  See  supra,  p.  148.  a5  These  monograms  are  only  partially  visible. 

B3  See  J. U.S.  x'xiii.  pp.  99  f.  But  they  can  easily  be  completed  from  the  two 

84  J.H.S.  xxiii.   Plate  I.,  3  and  5.  pieces  that  follow. 


23.  Similar ;  style  still  farther  dete- 

PI.  XIV.,  13=  Berlin  (Fox). 

BAZIAEQZ     Similar   type;     taenia 
A  NT  I  ox  oy     doubtful;    ex.     blank; 
to  1.,  beyond  inscr.,  head  and  neck 
of  griffin  1.  and,  below  it,   A. 

24.  Same  die  as  No.  23.  I  Similar. 
Berlin  (Imhoof,  Monn.  gfeeq.,  p.  426,  No.  29). 36 

25.  Same  die  as  Nos.  23/.  1  Similar. 
Paris  (Babelon,  Rois  dc  Syrie,  p.  29,  No.  210). 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  is  no  common  mint-mark  to  bind  together 
the  members  of  Class  C.  And  yet  its  homogeneity  is  beyond  all  shadow  of 
question.  The  seven  varieties  it  includes  involve  four  different  obverses.  The 
first  two  of  these  (Plate  XIV.,  10  and  11)  appear  to  be  from  the  same  hand. 
They  are  so  nearly  alike  that  it  requires  a  close  examination  to  distinguish' 
them.  They  are  remarkable  for  the  excellent  workmanship  they  display,  and 
also  for  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  portrait  they  present.  The  deeply 
sunk  eye  and  the  long  straight  nose  give  the  face  a  look  that  we  do  not  usually 
associate  with  Antiochus  II.  So  much  so  is  this  the  case  that  Gardner  in 
his  Seleucid  Kings  felt  justified  in  assigning  No.  19  to  Antiochus  Soter.37' 
His  proposal  met  with  opposition  from  the  outset,38  and  it  has  been  finally 
disposed  of  through  the  discovery  of  No.  1.  Its  rejection  leaves  us  with  the 
alternative  of  seeking  the  necessary  explanation  in  the  idiosyncrasy  of  the 
artist ;  but  if  he  has  erred,  he  deserves  to  be  forgiven,  for  he  has  produced  a 
striking  head.  No.  22,  though  of  much  inferior  style,  is  of  quite  exceptional 
interest.  No  obverse  in  the  whole  group  under  discussion  bears  the  stamp  of 
imitation  in  such  an  unmistakable  degree.  Its  position  on  Plate  XIV. 
(12)  is  well  adapted  to  bring  this  out ;  it  is  plainly  a  crude  attempt  to 
reproduce  the  head  immediately  above  it.  The  mechanical  treatment  of  the 
loose  ends  of  the  diadem  is  specially  significant.  Of  the  die  that  served  for 
the  obverses  of  Nos.  22  ff.  (Plate  XIV,  13)  there  is  little  or  nothing  to  be  said  -r 
it  illustrates  a  still  lower  stage  of  degradation. 

It  is,  however,  to  the  reverses  that  we  must  turn  for  the  most  convincing 
evidence  of  the  homogeneous  character  of  Class  C.  They  number  seven  in  all, 
three  (Nos.  19-21)  of  good  workmanship,  and  the  rest  (Nos.  22-25)  very  much 
inferior.  Here,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  obverses,  it  is  evident  that  the 
engraver  of  the  '  pattern '  piece  or  pieces  had  ideas  of  his  own.  Heracles  is- 
not  seated  upon  a  conventional  rock,  as  in  Classes  A  and  B,  but  upon  an 
object  that  has  some  resemblance  to  a  tub  or  cauldron ;  and  the  lower  part  of 
the  field  of  the  coin  is  cut  off  by  an  exergual  line.     These  features  are  faith- 

38  Imhoof  described    the   symbol,   which   is  37  Op.  cit.  p.  xv. 

obscure,  as  'un  buste  de  ccrf.'  38  jyunu  Chron.  1883,  p.  22  and  p.  78. 


fully  reproduced  on  the  imitations.  I  do  not  think  any  mysterious  significance 
attaches  to  the  former.  I  doubt  whether  it  is  meant  to  be  more  than  a  con- 
veniently rounded  stone.  Certainly,  if  it  is  a  tub  or  a  cauldron,  it  must  be 
supposed  to  have  a  very  stout  lid  ;  Heracles  is  sitting  well  back  towards  the 
centre.  Ottfried  Miiller  called  it  a  '  Kcssel,' so  and  Babelon  and  Six  have 
spoken  of  it  as  a  '  cuve.'i0  The  two"  first-named  saw  in  it  an  allusion  to 
the  cleansing  of  the  Augean  stables.  Whatever  its  true  character  may  be,  its 
<jhief  value  for  us  is  the  function  it  discharges  in  holding  together  the 
varieties  we  have  grouped  under  the  heading  of  Class  C.  It  is  the  strongest 
of  the  several  indications  that  point  so  conclusively  to  a  common  origin. 

And    we    can    even    determine   the   mint.     Although    the    engraver    or 

O  © 

engravers  of  the  'pattern'  pieces  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  denote  the 
issuing  city  by  a  symbol,  the  influence  of  fashion  was  apparently  too  much  for 
their  successors.  On  the  last  three  reverses  (Nos.  23-25),  in  the  field  beyond 
the  inscription — the  very  position  so  often  occupied  by  the  one-handled  vase 
at  Cyme  and  by  the  amphora  at  Myrina, — we  find  the  head  and  neck  of  a 
griffin  looking  to  the  1.  We  need  not  hesitate  to  interpret  this  as  the  mint- 
mark  of  Phocaea  in  Ionia,  the  first  important  town  on  the  coast  to  the  south 
of  Cyme.  The  griffin,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  was  a  popular  coin-type  there 
from  the  sixth  century  B.C.  onwards;  the  reverse  type  of  the  fourth  century 
bronze  piece  which  is  figured  on  Plate  XIII.,  3  is  exactly  the  same  as  the 
symbol  on  Mos.  23  ff.  The  analogy  with  Cyme  and  Myrina  is  so  complete  that 
no  further  proof  appears  to  be  required.  I  am  tempted,  however,  to  put  forward 
what  seems  to  me  to  be  an  additional  confirmation;  if  my  suggestion  is  accepted, 
■one  hitherto  unintelligible  feature  of  Classes  A  and  B  will  be  satisfactorily 
explained.  It  will  be  recollected  that  some  form  of  the  monogram  <fo  was  of 
practically  universal  occurrence  on  the  reverses  of  the  Heracles  tetradrachms 
struck  at  Cyme  and  at  Myrina.  Is  it  not  probable  that  it  represents  the  first 
two  letters  of  QwKaecov,  and  that  it  was  placed  upon  the  coins  of  the  other 
towns  in  token  of  the  alliance  that  found  expression  in  the  issue  ?  This  con- 
jecture receives  considerable  support  from  the  fact  that  the  monogram  actually 
was,  though  to  a  less  extent  than  the  griffin,  an  acknowledged  badge  of 
Phocaea.  It  is  even  employed  by  itself  as  a  reverse  type,  one  of  the  surest 
indications  of  a  ivapaa^fxov  ;41  see,  for  instance,  the  third  century  bronze  piece 
illustrated  on  Plate  XIII.,  4.  And  it  appears  on  Alexandrine  tetradrachms 
of  the  city  as  a  mint-mark,  both  alone  and  in  company  with  a  seal.4'2  Whether 
any  of  the  remaining  monograms  used  in  our  group  have  an  analogous  signi- 
ficance, may  be  doubted.  But  we  may  note  in  passing  that  A,  which  is  as 
unknown  to  Class  B  as  is  ^j  to  Class  C,  occurs  on  four  out  of  seven  reverses 
at  Phocaea,  and  on  at  least  five  out  of  nine  at  Cyme. 

Our  survey  of  the  separate  classes  being  thus  completed,  it  only  remains 

39  Denhmaeler  dcr  alten  Kunst,  i.  No.  236.  4J  Miiller,  Nos.  983  and  989.    Others,  also  of 

40  Lcs  rois  dc   Syrie;   p.    lxi.  ;    and  Num.       Phocaea,  show  the  forepart  or    the  head  of  a 
Chron.  1898,  p.  233.  griffin. 

41  Of.  Coin  Types,  pp.  123  ff. 


to  draw  attention  to  certain  general  conclusions.  It  seems  clear  that  about 
261  B.C.  something  of  the  nature  of  a  federal  union  subsisted  between  Cyme, 
Myrina,  and  Phocaea.  Cyme  had  minted  no  money  since  about  500  B.C., 
Myrina  had  never  had  a  mint  at  all,  Phocaea  had  issued  neither  gold  nor 
silver  nor  electrum  since  the  expedition  of  Alexander  the  Great.  Now,  pro- 
bably simultaneously,43  the  three  cities  begin  to  strike  Seleucid  tetradrachms 
with  a  reverse  type  of  a  new  and  very  remarkable  character.  And  just  about 
the  same  period  autonomous  silver  makes  its  appearance  for  a  brief  space  at 
Cyme  and  at  Myrina.  The  significance  of  these  circumstances  cannot  be  mis- 
interpreted. They  point  to  common  action  on  the  part  of  the  three  towns 
under  the  aegis  of  the  Seleucid  monarchy,  action  too  that  must  have  had  a 
successful  issue,  for  it  was  not  when  defeats  had  been  experienced  that  Greek 
states  took  to  striking  money.  It  is  not  possible  to  conjecture  with  any  degree 
of  confidence  against  whom  the  efforts  of  the  league  may  have  been  directe:!. 
Perhaps  it  was  Pergamene  or  Egyptian  aggression  that  had  to  be  repelled. 
Or  we  may  have  here  an  echo  of  that  struggle  against  the  Galatai  that  won 
for  Antiochus  I.  his  honourable  title  of  '  Saviour.' 

And  this  may  help  us  to  see  a  fresh  significance  in  the  figure  of  the 
resting  Heracles.  The  type  was  subsequently  imitated  by  Euthydemus  I.  of 
Bactria  (222-187  B.C.).  It  is  found  also  on  Spartan  tetradrachms,  some  of  them 
autonomous,  others  bearing  the  name  of  the  tyrant  Nabis  (207-192  B.C.). 
Whether  it  has  any  special  meaning  on  these,  we  cannot  tell;  it  may  be 
merely  an  imitation.  But,  so  far  as  regards  the  Seleucid  tetradrachms, 
some  other  explanation  is  required,  and  the  most  plausible  hitherto  available 
has  been  the  ingenious  suggestion  of  Babelon.44  He  connected  the  sudden 
appearance  of  Heracles  with  the  dominance  of  Aristos  and  Themison, 
the  Cyprian  brothers  who  were  boon  companions  of  Antiochus  II.  and  to 
whom  that  king  surrendered  much  of  his  own  power.45  Pythermos  describes 
Themison  as  masquerading  in  a  lion's  skin  with  a  club  and  bow,  and  allowing 
himself  to  be  hailed  at  festivals  as  Se/LLtacov  Ma/ceScov.  'AvnoXov  (3aai\e(i)s 
'WpaKkr)<i.iQ  With  the  discovery  of  No.  1  this  explanation  falls  to  the  ground  ; 
the  type  is  older  than  the  reign  of  Antiochus  II.  Is  it  going  too  far  afield 
to  recall  the  analogy  of  the  anti-Spartan  league  of  circa  394  B.C.,  when 
Byzantium,  Ephesus,  Samos,  Iasos,  Rhodes,  and  Cnidus  banded  themselves 
together  in  the  cause  of  liberty  ? 47  This  latter  confederation  chose  as  its 
characteristic  coin-type  a  representation  of  the  infant  Heracles  strangling  the 
serpents  that  threatened  his  destruction — a  fitting  enough  symbol  of  a  resolu- 
tion to  throw  off  a  yoke  that  had  grown  intolerable.  Is  it  not  conceivable 
that  the  Heracles  at  rest  may  have  been  meant  to  commemorate  some  great 
struggle  that  had  been  brought  to  a  successful  conclusion  ? 

43  Although  only  Cyme  is  definitely  known  i.  p.  336).  Cf.  Aelian.  Var.  Hist.  ii.  I. 

to  have  minted  with  the  head  of  Antiochus  I.,  4(i  Apud    Athen.     vii.    289   f.     (F.H.G.    iv. 

it  is  quite  likely  that  the  other  two  cities  did  488). 

tin-  same.  47  See  Waddington,  Rev.  Num.  1863,  223  ff., 

u  Jcois  rtc  Hyric,  p.  lxi.  and     (for    the   most   recent   discussion    of  the 

45  Phylarchos,  apud  Athen.  x.  438  d.  {F.H.G.  subject)  Eegling  in  Z.f.N.  xxv.  pp.  207  ff. 


The  pages  of  written  history  have  been  scanned  in  vain  for  any 
allusion  to  the  anti-Spartan  league  of  394  B.C. ;  the  evidence  for  its  existence 
remains  solely  numismatic.  In  the  case  of  the  alliance  which  our  study  of  the 
Heracles  tetradrachms  has  brought  to  light,  a  similar  search  has  not  proved 
so  absolutely  barren.  In  his  description  of  the  successful  campaign  waged 
by  Attalus  against  Achaeus  in  218  B.C.,  Polybius  (v.  77)  48  thus  opens  his 
account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  tide  of  public  opinion  in  the  Hellenic 
cities  turned  in  favour  of  Pergamum  :  vHaav  B)j  Tore  ixeTadep-evcu  7rpo? 
avTov,  irpMTov  fiev  Kv/xtj  teal  Ifivpva  koX  Qtotccua  '  p.era  8e  raura<i  k.t.X. 
That  is  the  traditional  text.  Wilcken,  however,  has  already  pointed  out  that 
S/J,vpva  is  an  obvious  corruption  for  Mvpiva.i0  His  grounds  for  proposing 
the  change  are  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  it  would  have  been  geographically 
absurd  to  have  '  sandwiched '  Smyrna  between  Cyme  and  Fhocaea.  In  the 
second  place,  the  participle  /neraOepevai  would  have  been  quite  inapplicable 
to  the  conduct  of  the  Smyrnaeans,  who  had  successfully  resisted  both  the 
threats  and  the  blandishments  of  Achaeus;  a  few  lines  further  down 
Polybius  goes  on  to  tell  how  Attalus  i^ptj^dricre  rots  irapa  tcov  ^Lp,vpvalu>v 
7rpecr/3evTai<;  (pi\avdpoo7rco$,  Sta  to  fxaXcara  tovtovs  reryprjKevaL  tiju  rrrpo? 
civtov  TTio-Ttv.  Wilcken's  emendation  has  been  generally  accepted  and 
hardly  requires  the  additional  support  it  now  receives  from  the  knowledge 
that,  forty  or  fifty  years  before  the  events  narrated  by  Polybius,  the  three 
towns  had  concluded  a  formal  alliance.  How  long  that  alliance  may  have 
endured  we  cannot  say.  But  it  would  at  least  appear  that  in  the  crisis  of 
218  B.C.  the  memory  of  261  was  still  sufficiently  strong  to  ensure  joint 
political  action. 

I    shall   conclude  by   noting   one   other   point   where   the   numismatic 

evidence  we  have   marshalled   can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  history.     This 

time  its  value  is  negative.     Like  so  much  else  that  happened  in  the  third 

century  B.C.,  the  earlier  stages  in  the  growth  of  the  Pergamene  kingdom  are 

wrapped  in  considerable   obscurity.      Strabo  (XIII.  p.   624)  mentions  that 

Eumenes  I.  inflicted  a  heavy  defeat  on  Antiochus  I.  at  Sardis.  Modern  historians 

have  assumed  that  his  victory  was  the  signal  for  a  wide  extension  of  the 

boundaries  of  Pergamum.     It  may  have  been  so.     But  not  all  the  inferences 

based  upon  the  passage  can  be  justified.    Niese 50  tentatively  and  Beloch  ol  with 

much  more  confidence  have  assigned  to  that,  date  the  boundary  stone  inscribed 

opoi  Uepya/jLi]i'coi>,  which  was  found  between  Cyme  and  Myrina,62  and  which 

must  therefore  have  been  erected  after  the  territory  of  the   latter  city  had 

been    incorporated  in  the  dominions  of  Pergamum.     Our    coins  forbid    the 

entertaining  of  any   such  suggestion.     They  show  that  at  all  events  during 

the  earlier  years   of  the   reign  of  Antiochus   II.   Myrina   still  continued  to 

acknowledge  the  suzerainty  of  the  Seleucidae. 

George  Macdonald. 

43  I   am  indebted  to  Mr.    EL   L.  Bevau  for  !0  Geseh.  der  Grieck.  undMaked.   - 

directing  my  attention  to  this  passage,  p.  85,  footnote  '<. 

«  S.r.    -Attalos'    in  Paulv-Wissowa,    /,'  M  Gricch.  Gcsch.  iii.  (i)  p.  614,  footnote  2. 

JSneycl  iii.  2162.  s2 B. C. E.  v.  p.288. 


The  cultivation  of  instrumental  music  remained  in  a  backward  state 
among  the  Greeks  in  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries,  B.C.  This  was  certainly 
not  due  to  any  want  of  taste  for  music  as  a  whole,  for  no  race  ever  valued  it 
higher  than  did  the  Greeks.  The  reasons  seem  to  have  been,  first,  the 
bondage  of  the  instrument  to  the  voice,  second,  the  unsettled  state  of  the 
musical  scale,  and  thirdly,  the  dislike  of  the  Greeks  for  over-elaboration  in 

These  three  points  are  well  illustrated  in  the  Republic  of  Plato.  In 
opening  the  discussion  on  the  admissibility  of  certain  modes,  Socrates  is 
made  to  say  that  a  musical  composition  is  made  up  of  three  things,  the 
'words,'  the  'harmony,'  and  the  'rhythm,'  and  that  the  musical  ;  words'  are  in 
themselves  in  no  way  different  from  the  words  of  common  speech.2  In 
another  place  much  scorn  is  cast  by  Glaucon  on  the  musicians  that  sought  for 
the  least  perceptible  interval  to  make  that  the  unit  of  sound-measurement, 
some  of  the  experimenters  declaring  that  they  could  distinguish  an  intermed- 
iate note,  where  others  insisted  that  the  two  sounds  had  passed  into  unison.3 
Socrates  answers  '  You  mean  those  gentlemen  who  tease  and  torture  the 
strings,  screwing  them  up  on  the  pegs.' 

Socrates  and  Glaucon  both  speak  as  amateurs  in  music,  and  their 
feelings  must  have  been  shared  by  many  Athenians  at  the  time.  Just  as 
with  us  there  are  some  who  long  for  the  return  of  Handel's  '  noble  harmonies,' 
as  a  relief  from  the  chromatic  aberrations  of  the  Wagnerian  school,  so  these 
two  worthy  Greeks  looked  back  to  the  sturdy  Dorian  airs  of  Terpander  as 
the  true  strains  of  the  Hellenic  muse,  before  she  had  learnt  to  voice  the 
subtler  moods  of  the  heart  of  man.  To  such  amateurs  the  refinements 
of    the   musical   scale   must   have    seemed   base   loans   from   the    decadent 

1  I  wish  to  thank  the  following  gentlemen  4  ;  and  Dr.  W.  H.  D.  Rouse  for  supplying  me 

for    their   land    and    valued    help    to    me    in  with   a   modern  example   of  a  pan-pipe    from 

Collecting   the  materials  for    this  article  :   M.  Smyrna. 

A.     Merlin,     Head      of     the    Department    of  With  very  few  exceptions,  the   monuments 

Antiquities    lor  Tunisia,   for    having  specially  referred  to  are  known  to  me  in  the  originals, 

had    photographed    for    me   the    unpublished  from  my  visits  to  the  museums  where  they  are 

statuette   from  the  Musee  Alaoui,  Tunis  (Fig.  to  bo  found. 

5)    as    well    as    for    much    other    assistance;  -  iii.    398  D.     Cf.    Nettleship,    Lectures    on 

M.  Gouvet,    Director  of  the  Museum  at  Susa  Plato  s  Rep.  108. 

(Sousse)  for  the  prints  used  in  Figures   2  and  :;  vii.  531  a. 


art  of  the  East ;  and  if,  as  is  now  thought,  the  music  of  the  fourth  century 
used  intervals  of  a  quarter,  three-eighths,  a  third,  two-thirds,  and  three- 
quarters  of  a  tone,  this  was  no  wonder.4 

The  contrast  is  drawn  by  Socrates  between  the  school  to  which  Aristo- 
xenus belonged,  the  cultivators  of  the  enharmonic  style,  and  the  Pythagoreans, 
who  based  the  scale  on  the  harmonic  relations  of  the  octave,  fourth,  and  fifth. 
Into  the  details  of  this  controversy  there  is  no  need  to  enter,  but  it  is  clear 
that  such  a  simple  and  easily-tuned  instrument  as  the  lyre  was  best  fitted  to 
this  screwing-up  process  by  which  the  minimum  intervals  were  reached.  A 
many-stringed  instrument  would  have  taken  too  long  to  adjust  to  any 
highly  complicated  system.  By  the  time  of  Aristoxenus  himself  the 
enharmonic  scale  was  nearly  dead,  as  Aristoxenus  himself  regrets;"'  and 
although  the  later  musical  writers  repeat  mechanically  their  account  of  it, 
there  is  not  much  reason  for  thinking  that  it  was  ever  revived  in  practice. 
Aristoxenus  complains  that,  if  the  enharmonic  system  was  dropped,  there  would 
soon  be  nothing  left  but  the  diatonic  and  the  '  highstrung '  chromatic  {^pwyni 
(tvvtovov  or  rovialov  6),  and  these  actually  survived. 

The  objection  felt  by  many  Greeks  to  variety  of  musical  effect  is  voiced 
by  Socrates  soon  after  his  remark  first  quoted.  He  banishes  such  many- 
stringed  and  various  instruments  as  the  'Triangle,'  the  '  Pectis,'  and  all  kinds 
of  flutes,"  leaving  only  the  lyre,  cithara,  and,  for  shepherds,  the  pan-pipe 
{syrinx).  It  is  possible  that  in  retaining  the  cithara,  Socrates  may  have 
meant  only  the  kind  with  few  strings,  for  it  would  have  been  strange  to 
admit  a  fourteen-stringed  cithara,  while  condemning  the  flute  for  its  too 
great  variety  of  sound.  Here  Plato's  views  must  have  seemed  very  narrow 
even  to  his  own  age.  In  making  music  a  means  of  moral  upbuilding  he  not 
only  struck  at  virtuosity  and  over-refinement,  but  would  have  checked  the 
progress  of  the  art  along  its  most  promising  lines.  His  beliefs  do  not  seem  to 
have  had  much  effect,  for  the  very  instruments  that  he  excluded  were  culti- 
vated with  growing  zeal.  In  Greece  itself  however  the  double-flute,  lyre,  and 
cithara  remained  the  favourites.    At  Athens  every  boy  was  taught  the  lyre,  ami 

4  Cf.  WestphaL  Harm.  u.  .1/./.  -/.  Gr.  4'.    17.  chromatic  could   b>-  played   on  a  piano;    and 

Westphal's  view  holds  the  field,  but  it   ne.-ds  although    Ptolemy  has  three  kinds  of  diatonic 

some  t'aitli  to  believe  that  these  ear-splitting  scale,  it  would  -till  seem  that  the  music  of  his 

dissonances  were  commonly  played  and  sung.  day  would  not  have  sounded  utterly  bai 

The  so-called  enharmonic  mode  of  the  modern  to  our  ears.     A  form  of  chromatic  mode  is  in 

Eastern    Church    CHxos    rp'nos  ;    cf.     I.    Th.  use  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  is  often  heard 

Sakellarides  'Upk   'r/xv^Sla   95)    is    sung    like  in  Romaic   folk-songs:  it  has  an  austere  and 

thr  major  scale  of  F;  and  it  lias  been  supposed  striking  effect.     A    -soli  '  diatonic  is  .sung  in 

by  Doin  (iaisser    La  Musique  Eccl.  Or.  0'  apres  -ome  Greek  churches  as  the  second  Byzantine 

la  Tradition)  thai  the  ancient  enharmonic  was  mode;  but    few   western    listeners   find   much 

the  same  as  this,  the  two  quarter-  ss  in  it.     We  ourselves  allow  both  the 

tones    being    always   sung   together,    and    the  '.just'   and   the    'tempered'   intonation;    the 

double   tone   being   divided.      It  is  impossible  bagpipes,    I    believe,    are   tuned   to   neither  of 

now  to  go  into  this  interesting  theory.  these,  and  their  effect  is  not  always  dislik 

Quoted  in   Pint,  de  Mus.  38.     Cf.  Aristox.  7  iii.  399  C  and  i>.  Aim.  Pol.  viii.  0  will  not 

Harm.  i.  23.  allow  these  instruments  in  the  training  of  th.' 

8  This  is  stated  by   Ptolemy.      Cf.    Monro,  young. 
Modes  of  Ancient  Gfr.  Mus.  111.    The  highstrung 

U.S. — VOL.  XXVII.  M 



the  use  of  the  flute  was  by  no  means  confined  to  professionals  :  Alcibiades,  for 
example,  is  said  to  have  studied  on  it.s  Again  Epaminondas  not  only  played 
the  flute  like  other  Thebans,  but  learnt  the  lyre  also.  The  cithara,  which 
had  been  perfected  by  Timotheus,9  was  chiefly  played  by  professionals.  These 
three  instruments  are  common  subjects  on  Attic  vases,  and  late  monuments 
and  authorities  show  that  their  use  went  on  through  the  Roman  age  :  their 
nature  however  is  so  well  known  that  there  is  no  need  to  say  more  about 

The  kinds  of  harp  called  '  Triangle  '  and  '  Pectis '  by  Plato  seem  to  have 
been  of  Lydian  origin.  Athenaeus,  who  has  a  long  discussion  on  the  subject, 
says  that  the  Magadis  was  a  stringed  instrument,  later  called  Sambuca,  while 
the  Pectis  was  the  same.10  It  is  possible  that  the  '  Triangle  '  was  also  similar, 
and  that  the  names  of  Trigonon  and  Pectis  were  meant  as  Greek  renderings 
for  the  foreign  words  Magadis  and  Sambuca.  This  harp,  as  it  may  safely  be 
called,  is  often  seen  in  Egyptian  art,  and  must  have  been  widespread  over  the 
East.     It  appears  on  a  fine  red-figured  vase  in  conjunction  with  the  lyre  and 

cithara.11  Athenaeus  says  that  Sappho 
brought  in  its  use  from  Lydia,  and  Anacreon, 
as  his  own  words  record,  played  a  harp  with 
twenty  strings.12  The  instrument  embraced 
the  whole  compass  of  the  singing  voice,  and 
had  high  notes  beyond  the  range  of  the 
cithara.13  It  could  be  used  without  a 
striker.  One  of  its  peculiarities  was  that 
the  sound-box  was  on  the  upper  side. 
Smaller  sizes  with  nine  or  even  five  strings 
were  sometimes  made.  Examples  of  such  miniature  harps  are  seen  in  some 
of  the  wall-paintings  now  in  the  Naples  Museum :  one  of  these,  played  by  a 
Cupid,  is  here  illustrated.     (Fig.  l)u 

Another  stringed  instrument  of  the  same  class,  more  like  a  zither,  became 
popular  in  the  Roman  Age.  But,  while  the  use  of  the  harp  called  for  great 
skill,  and  gave  full  scope  for  rich  and  splendid  effects,  the  zither  can  only 
have  yielded  a  thin  and  twanging  tone,  especially  as  the  ancient  instrument 
often  had  no  sound-box.  This  instrument  is  nearly  always  played  by  women, 
who  often  wear  a  carelessly  sumptuous  dress,  suited  rather  to  paid  performers 
than  to  freewomen.     Examples  are  again  seen  in  Roman  wall-paintings.     In 

Fig.  1. — Tp.igonum  on  Sambuca. 

h  Duris  ap.  Athen.  iv.  84,  184  d,  whore  it  is 
said  that  the  famous  flute-player  Pronomus  was 
Alcibiades'  master. 

!»  Cf.  Pans.  iii.  12.  8. 

''  Athenaeus  xiv.  34-38.  Aristotle  I.e. 
classes  together  the  Pectis,  Barbiton,  Heptagon 
(otherwise  unknown),  Triangle,  and  Sambuca: 
he  rails  them  apxc'ia  vpyava. 

11  Pauini'ister,  Dculemaler,  1544. 

12  Anacr.  14(5).  \pd\\w  5'  tlico<T(ixopoov) 
<lv  x*P^v>  fw.ya.lw  tx<if.     In   fr.l3(I6)   he 

speaks  of  the  Pectis. 

13  Telestes  4  (5)  (Bergk)  rol  8'  o^vcpwvois 
TrriKTtSccv  ^aA/AO? <  s>   KpeKov  AvStov  vjjlvov. 

14  For  other  examples  cf.  Le  Pitturc  Ant.  d' 
Ercolcmo.  v.  167.  Inghirami,  Pitt,  cli  Vasi 
Fittili  iv.  cccxliii. ,  and  von  Jan  Arch.  Zeit. 
xvi.  187  (PI.  cxv.  14).  For  these  instruments 
in  general  cf.  an  article  by  von  Jan  in 
Baumeister  s.r.  Sail  en  instrumental  ;  and  a 
dissertation  of  the  same  writer,  Die  gr. 



Roman  Africa  a  complicated  form  of  this  instrument  was  common,  and  it  is 
often  represented  in   statuettes.     The  example  (Fig.  2)  is  from  Susa  (Had- 
rumetum)  and  shows  a  lady  performer,  richly  dressed,  and  possibly  wearing 
a  wig :  on  either  side  of  her  is  a  small  figure, 
perhaps  of  a  muse.     The  type  is  often  seen  in 
Africa.15     The  name  of  this  zither  was  perhaps 
the  Psaltery. 

A  more  curious  contrivance  was  the 
so-called  Tripod,  invented  by  Pythagoras  of 
Zacynthus,  and  described  by  Athenaeus.1'1 
This  stood  on  a  revolving  base  with  a  sound- 
box called  A,e/3?7?  above ;  the  strings  were 
stretched  between  the  three  branches  that 
gave  the  instrument  its  name.  On  one  side 
the  strings  were  tuned  in  the  Dorian  mode,  on 
another  in  the  Phrygian,  and  on  the  third  in 
the  Lydian.  If  the  player  wished  to  change 
the  mode,  he  had  only  to  turn  the  instrument 
with  his  foot,  so  as  to  bring  another  row  of 
strings  within  his  reach.  The  left  hand  was 
used  to  stop  down  the  strings  or  to  check 
their  vibration,17  and  the  right  hand  held  the 
striker.  This  ingenious  instrument  did  not 
survive  the  death  of  its  inventor. 

The  principle  of  shortening  a  string  to 
make  higher  notes  was  known  to  the  Greeks 
at  an  early  age.  Nicomachus  says  that  the 
Pythagoreans  called  a  one-stringed  lute  a  Canon,18  which  means  that  it 
was  used  by  them  as  a  standard  for  generating  their  scale.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  the  range  of  the  cithara  was  sometimes  extended  by  stopping 
down  the  strings,  but  this  was  no  part  of  the  regular  technique  of  that 
instrument.  In  the  Roman  age  instruments  appear  in  which  the  strings  were 
systematically  stopped  down  on  a  finger-board  as  in  a  modern  mandoline. 
Although  it  is  possible  to  embrace  a  large  compass  of  notes  in  this  way,  the 
tone  produced  must  always  have  been  feeble  and  lacking  in  resonance  ;  and 
as  now  the  guitar,  mandoline,  ami  banjo  are  hardly  reckoned  as  instruments 
of  music,  so  the  use  of  such  instruments  in  old  time  was  a  sign  of  declining 
taste.  The  ancient  name  seems  to  have  been  the  Pandura.  Pollux  remark- 
that  the  Pandura  had  three  strings,  ami  was  invented  by  the  Assyrians.19 
Nicomachus,  in  the  place   already  quoted,  classes  the    Pandura  with  the  one- 

Fig.   2.— Terracotta    Figure   at 

Susa.      Woman  with  Zither 

13  Cf.     two    similar    figures    in     tin-     Musde 
Alaoui,  Tunis  {Miuie  "'"  Bardo  71,  7">  ;  in  the 
series  SfusA  i  tt  Collections  arch.  d'Algir 
hi  Tunisie,  ed.  La  Bl  inch)  re.) 

'"  A  then.  xiv.  41. 

17   Aio  rr)V  ewifioXijr. 

18  Harm.  p.  8. 

''  Pollux  I-'.  60.     Tf>i\op5oi-  5i  $xcp 'Affa6pioi 
irarbovpar    atvofiafav,    iKttwv   5'    ij»'    rb    evp-q/ua. 

Where  however  Dindorf  notes  that  no  form  ol 
the  nann>  Pandura  is  found  either  in  Assyrian 
or  Chaldaean. 

M    2 


H.  J.  W.  TILLY ARD 

stringed  lute.  But  this  can  hardly  mean  more  than  that  the  notes  were 
produced  on  the  same  principle,  namely  by  stopping  down  the  strings.  Other 
writers  confuse  the  Pandura  with  the  pan-pipe ; 20  but  as  the  name  is  still 
applied  to  a  stringed  instrument  in  Italy,  it  can  hardly  have  been  otherwise 
in  antiquity.  Martianus  Capella21  calls  it  an  Egyptian  invention,  and  it  is 
probable  at  any  rate  that  it  came  from  the  East.  The  Emperor  Helioga- 
balus,  who  was  brought  up  in  Syria,  used,  among  his  other  undignified 
pursuits,  to  play  on  the  Pandura  ; 22  and  one  is  represented  on  a  silver  cup 
of  Graeco-Persian  workmanship  found  in  South  Russia.23 

About  a  dozen  examples  of  this  type  of  instrument  are  known,  and  none 
of  them  is  earlier  than  the  Roman  age.24  Two  principal  shapes  may 
be  distinguished.  One  is  shaped  very  much  like  a  mandoline,  with  an 
oval   shell   and   a   short    neck.     Of  this  the  Graeco-Persian  Pandura   is  a 

specimen;  and  there  is  another  played  by  a 
siren  on  a  sarcophagus  in  the  Lateran 
Museum,25  and  another,  almost  guitar-shaped, 
in  the  museum  at  Turin  (Fig.  3).*25a  The 
other  form  resembles  a  banjo:  it  has  a  very 
long  neck,  but  instead  of  a  drum  head 
stretched  over  a  hoop,  a  round  shell  is  used 
to  re-inforce  the  sound.  The  back  and  front  of  such  instruments,  with 
the  manner  of  playing,  are  shown  in  the  illustrations  (Figs.  4  and  5).  These 
are  taken  from  African  statuettes ;  but  the  type  is  not  at  all  common.  The 
other  extant  examples  are  chiefly  on  sarcophagi.  A  fine  specimen  is  seen 
in  the  representation  of  the  wedding  of  Cupid  and  Psyche  on  a  late 
sarcophagus  in  the  British  Museum.20  At  Naples  27  there  is  a  sarcophagus 
which  is  remarkable  because  not  only  one  of  the  figures  in  the  scene  repre- 
sented, but  also  the  lady  who  appears  on  the  medallion,  and  was  therefore 
buried  in  the  coffin,  are  playing  the  Pandura.  The  instruments  here  are  shaped 
like  the  African  specimens,  having  a  crescent-shaped  top,  and  four  strings 
instead  of  the  three  mentioned  by  Pollux.  It  cannot  be  seen  whether 
the  finger-board  was  divided  by  ridges,  as  in  modern  instruments  of  that  class. 
On  the  African  statuette  it  would  almost  seem  that  the  strings  are  stretched 
over  a  bridge,  but  this  also  is  uncertain. 

Among  the  instruments  condemned  by   Plato  are  all  kinds  of  flutes.'28 

Fig.  3. — Pandura. 

E.g.  Isid.  Orig.  3.  20. 

21  9.  924.     Aihenaeus  iv.  82  ascribes  its  dis- 

,  t>>  tin-  Ti'i;_'lo<lytes  by  the  Red  Sea. 

22  '  Panduriza/vit,'  Lamprid.  IIc.l.  32. 

-'    Stcphalii.   (Jon, j,/'    J.'.n'/n,  1881,  5ft. 

24  There  is  a  list  given  byStephani  ib.  Some 
<1  Li-  examples  are  doubtful.  The  supposed 
Pandura  on  the  well-known  Hippolytus  relief 
on  a  fine  early  sarcophagus  in  the  cathedral 
ii  Girgenti  'Arch.  Zeit.  1847,  PI.  VI.)  seems  to 
ne  alter  close  inspection)  to  be  only  an 
elongated  lyre.     The  instrument  on  a  relief  in 

the  Louvre  (Clarac,  Mus.  Sculp.  119,  No.  47  ; 
cf.  Robert,  Ant.  Sark.  ii.  41,  pi.  26  a)  is  also 
hardly  a  Pandura. 

25  Benndorf,  126. 

23:1  On  a  late  relief  of  Orpheus  and  the 
Nymphs.      Unpublished,  but  possibly  forged. 

28  Ancient  Marbles  in  B.M.  PI.  IX.  Fig.  3, 
ami  p.  35. 

27  Naples  Museum,  No.  6598. 

28  Arist.  I.e.  also  rejects  the  flute  in  educa- 


He  was  no  doubt  thinking  chiefly  of  the  double-flute,  which  had  reached 
a  high  pitch  of  complication  in  his  own  day,29  and  which  is  often  represented 
on  Attic  vases.  The  instrument  belonged  rather  to  the  flageolet  class 
and  had  a  mouthpiece.  The  true  flute-type  (ir\ayiav\o<;)  was  also  known 
but  little  cultivated.  It  is  sometimes  seen  as  a  short  fife  played  by  Fauns  and 
Satyrs;  or  by  Cupids,  as  on  the  urn  of  L.  Minucius  Felix  in  the  Capitol 
Museum  at  Rome.30  A  more  interesting  type  of  wind-instrument,  appearing 
in  the  Roman  age,  had    a   wing-joint,  and   resembled    a   bassoon.     This    is 

Fio.  4. — Terracotta  Figure 
at  Svsa.     Woman  with 
Pandura   .and   Wreath. 

Fig.  5. 

-Terkacotta  Figure  in  the  M usee  Alaoui. 

Max  Playing  ox  the  Panduiia. 

seen  on  a  sarcophagus  in  the  Taormina  Museum,  hero  illustrated  (Figs.  (>.  7). 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  sculpture  is  late  work.  The  heads  of  the  figures  are 
too  big,  the  iris  of  the  eye  is  hollowed  out,  and  the  hair  and  drapery  are 
freely  worked  with  the  drill.  The  sarcophagus,  which  was  meant  fir  a  child, 
may  therefore  date  from  the  third  contury  A.D.  Besides  the  bass  wind- 
instrument  there  are  also  a  lyre,  cymbals,  a  conch-shell,  and  a  small  pan-pipe 
in  use.  The  name  of  the  instrument  is  uncertain  :  it  may  have  been 
the  Bombalium.31  There  is,  I  believe,  only  one  other  example,  which  is  seen 
on  a  small  sarcophagus  in  the  Vatican.32 

29  It  had  been  perfected  l>\    Pronomus   tin' 
master  of  Alcibiades.     Pans.  ix.  12.  5. 

30  H.ll.i^,  Fuhrer,  440. 

:I  This  word  occurs  Epith.  Laurent.  61. 

■'■-  Mus.    Pio-Clem.    v.    1:3.      It    i>    doubtful 

whether  the  Pan  in  the  British  Museun 
'•;  B.Af.    iii.    135     is    playing   such   an 

instrument.     (Cf.  the  article  in  Baumeis 


H.  J.  W.  TILL  YARD 

The  pan-pipe  (Syrinx,  Fig.  8)  was  one  of  the  oldest  Greek  instruments,  and 
was  always  put  in  the  hands  of  shepherds  and  country  deities.     In  pastoral 

4  W'$*** ' 




4  vt  ?: 

Fig.  6.— Sarcophagus  in  the  Taobmina  Museum. 

Fig.  7.— Part  of  the  Sarcophagus  Shown  in  Fig  6. 

poetry  it  is  often  mentioned,  and  it  appears  in  art  as  an  attribute  of  Pan  and 
of  Fauns  and  Satyrs.  It  consisted  of  a  row  of  pipes  made  of  cane-stalk, 
each  pipe  being  stopped  by  the  natural  joint  of  the  cane,  below   which  the 



pipe  was  cut  off.  The  pipes  were  put  in  a  row,  and,  as  Pollux  says,33 
fastened  together  with  thread  and  wax.  Below  and  above  the  row  of  pipes 
two  flat  strips  of  cane  were  laid,  and  to  these  the  thread  was  tied,  going 
round  the  reeds  and  holding  them  firmly  together.  It  is  easy  to  see  from 
ancient  sculpture  that  this  was  the  plan  then  followed,  and  a  modern 
pan-pipe  from  Smyrna,  now  in  my  hands,  has  been  put  together  in  the  same 

In  the  Greek  pan-pipe,  the  reeds  all  appear  of  the  same  length  :  there 
were  as  a  rule  about  eight  of  these.34     Such  an  instrument  is  played  by 

i  11  n  II  ii  ii  ii  ii 



Fig.  8.— Pan-pipes  :  {a)  Greek,  (6)  Graeco-Roman. 
(The  natural  joints  of  the  cane  are  shown  in  black.) 

Calliope  on  the  Francois  Vase,  and  it  appears  as  an  attribute  of  Pan  on 
Arcadian,  Messenian,  and  Sicilian  coins.30  In  later  art  it  is  rare,  though 
there  is  a  good  example  on  a  relief  of  the  Hellenistic  age  in  the  Barracco 
Museum  at  Rome,  representing  Pan  and  the  Nymphs. 

As  the  reeds  were  all  of  the  same  length,  how  were  the  different  notes 
made  ?  Some  have  thought  that  there  was  a  row  of  holes  in  the  pipes  at 
certain  heights  above  the  joints  ;  but  I  have  found  that  a  hole  in  the  side  of 
the  pipe  takes  away  the  musical  tone  altogether.  It  is  not  likely  in  itself, 
nor  does  it  appear  from  the  monuments  that  difference  of  thickness  was  the 
sole  basis  of  the  scale.  Probably  therefore  the  reeds  instead  of  being  cut 
off  just  below  the  joint  of  the  cane,  as  in  the  modern  pipe,  were  cut  some 
inches  longer  than  they  were  meant  to  be,  and  when  the  upper  part  of  each 
had  been  trimmed  to  the  length  required,  the  lower  ends  were  simply  cut  off 
so  as  to  leave  the  pipes  even,  although  the  part  of  each  pipe  above  the  joint 
(which  alone  made  the  note)  would  be  different  in  every  case.  The  advantage 
of  this  plan  would  be  that  reeds  of  the  same  length  would  be  easier  to 
fasten  together,  and  the  pan-pipe  thus  made  would  be  more  handy  to  hold. 

13  Pollux  iv.  69  (ffvpty^)  .  .  .  i]  fi-if  ovv  Ka\d- 
uuic  iffTt  <xvv8T}Kri  AtVy  k<x\  Kriptji  crvvSeduaa.  The 
pan-pipe  is  also  an  attribute  of  Attis.  Cf.  the 
terracottas  in  B.C.K  xxi.  518  5-JU.  The  reeda 
are  all  of  the  Bame  length. 

■  Cf.  Ann.  d.  Inst.  1877,  211. 
<  p.  Gard  ns,  PI.  II.  12. 

W.  M    Leake,  K  .  Hell.  17.     Head,Hist. 


168  H.  J.  W.  TILL  YARD 

The  Roman  form  of  the  pan-pipe  was  also  the  Etruscan  36  and  the  modern 
shape  :  in  this  the  reeds  were  cut  off  just  below  the  joints  of  the  cane,  and 
so  bound  together  as  to  leave  the  ends  of  the  instrument  sloping.37  This 
became  the  recognised  form  in  Graeco-Roman  art,  and  it  is  very  widespread 
on  the  monuments.  It  seems  to  have  taken  the  fancy  of  the  mediaeval 
restorers,  so  that  countless  statues  have  been  embellished  with  pan-pipes 
in  plaster. 

Pan-pipes  were  made  in  all  sizes ;  some  had  only  four  or  five  small 
reeds ;  one  of  these  is  seen  on  the  sarcophagus  from  Taormina,  already 
illustrated ;  some  had  as  many  as  twelve  reeds  bound  with  three  bands.3S 
A  piece  of  ribbon  was  sometimes  fastened  to  the  instrument  by  which  it 
could  be  carried  when  not  in  use.  The  scale  of  the  pan-pipe  no  doubt 
varied  with  the  maker's  taste,  but  it  was  probably  diatonic  as  a  rule : 
firstly  because  it  would  be  the  easiest  to  make  in  tune,  and  secondly 
because  the  murmuring  or  buzzing  effect  produced  by  gliding  from  note 
to  note  would  have  been  harsh  and  dissonant  on  any  other  system.  By 
strengthening  the  blowing  each  reed  could  be  made  to  yield  a  note 
an  octave  higher  than  its  normal  pitch ;  so  that  perhaps  the  instrument 
with  seven  or  eight  reeds  was  strictly  diatonic,  while  the  more  complex 
and  rarer  kinds  had  chromatic  notes  in  between.  The  shape  with  a  double 
row  of  pipes  seems  to  have  been  invented  by  the  restorers  of  statues  in 
the  middle  ages.39 

Literary  references  to  the  pan-pipe  are  very  common :  it  will  be  enough 
to  quote  a  pretty  description  from  Claudian,  which  shows  how  the  instrument 
was  played.     (Epith.  Pall,  et  Cel.  34) 

(Hymenaeus)  .  .  .  platano  namque  ille  sub  alta 
fusus  inaequales  cera  texebat  avenas, 
Maenaliosque  modos  et  pastoralia  labris 
murmura  tentabat  relegens,  orisque  recursu 
dissimuli  tenuem  variabat  arundine  ventum. 

Besides  the  common  pan-pipe  which  was  blown  from  the  top  of  the 
reeds,  the  Romans  invented  a  more  complicated  kind  known  as  the  Etrus- 
can Pipe.  Pollux  explains  that  this  was  made  of  bronze  reeds  and  was 
played  upside  down,  the  smaller  sort  being  blown  by  the  breath.40  Of 
this  instrument  the  pan-pipes  now  extant  in  the  Naples  Museum  are  ex- 
amples. The  larger  sort,  says  Pollux,  was  blown  by  water ;  so  that  it  is 
clear  that  he  is  referring  in  both  cases  to  primitive  kinds  of  organ  with 

38  It  appears  on   an    Etruscan    urn,   Brunn,  is  nearly  all  plaster. 

Bilievi  </.  Urnc  Etrus.  1,    PI.  92,  3  ;  cf.   Jlu//.  40  Pollux  iv.  70  toDto  Se  kclto.  epimKiv  exuv  *> 

Inst.  1886,   1,  101.  Tupprjvbs  ai)\hs  a.VTeaTpa/€Vi)  vvpiyynrapeoiKws, 

'■'"    Cf.   Oviil.  Met.  i.  710,    disparibus  calamis.  xa^K^s  Me'"  fffTtv  6  KaXa/xos,  KaToodtv  Se  xnroirve6- 

18  The   pan  pipe  on   the  glass  krater  in  the  [xtvos.     fixrats  fx\v  b  £\d.TTwv,  liScm  5e  6  ixsifav 

Naples  Museum  {Cat.  p.  91)  lias  twelve  reeds.  ava.B\ifiofx{v<p   ica\  aftpav  -nvivfxaios  acpievri.      For 

'*  Thus  the  example  in  the  Vatican  (Ann--  the  instruments  at  Naples  cf.  C.  Abdy  Williams, 

lxmg,[Sculp.  d.  Vat.  Mus.,  M.  Chiaramonti  588]  Class.  Rev.  1902,  409. 


some  sort  of  mechanical  fingering';  and  it  is  curious  to  note  that  from  the 
pan-pipe  which  was  deemed  only  good  enough  for  shepherds  should  have 
grown  the  most  majestic  of  all  instruments.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
organ  was  highly  developed  in  the  later  Roman  age,41  as  may  be  inferred 
from  a  fine  passage  of  Claudian  {Be  Mall.  Theod.  Cons.  316). 

Et  qui  magna  levi  detrudens  murmura  tactu 
innumeras  voces  segetis  moderatus  aenae, 
intonat  erranti  digito,  penitusque  trabali 
vecte  laborantes  in  carmina  concitet  undas. 

It  is  remarkable  that  this  noble  instrument  described  by  Claudian 
served  no  better  end  than  to  amuse  the  crowd  gathered  in  the  amphitheatre, 
where  its  strains  alternated  with  the  feats  of  tumblers  and  the  sallies  of 
buffoons.  But  this  after  all  may  be  characteristic  of  the  music  of  the  Roman 
age :  it  was  no  longer  dedicated  chiefly  to  the  worship  of  the  gods,  or  to 
the  serious  education  of  youth ;  the  advance  in  skill  and  in  the  variety 
of  instruments  did  not  imply  a  real  progress  in  the  art,  but  rather  led  to 
virtuosity  and  false  effect. 

H.    J.    W.    TlLLYARD. 

41  On  the  Roman  organ   v.  Baumeister  s.v.       upon  here. 
Floten.     The  subject  is  too  wide  to  be  entered 


Few  peoples  of  the  ancient  world  have  given  rise  to  so  much  controversy 
as  the  Pelasgians ;  and  of  few,  after  some  centuries  of  discussion,  is  so  little 
clearly  established.  Like  the  Phoenicians,  the  Celts,  and  of  recent  years  the 
Teutons,  they  have  been  a  peg  upon  which  to  hang  all  sorts  of  speculation  ; 
and  whenever  an  inconvenient  circumstance  has  deranged  the  symmetry  of  a 
theory,  it  has  been  safe  to  '  call  it  Pelasgian  and  pass  on.' 

One  main  reason  for  this  ill-repute,  into  which  the  Pelasgian  name  has 
fallen,  has  been  the  very  uncritical  fashion  in  which  the  ancient  statements 
about  the  Pelasgians  have  commonly  been  mishandled.  It  has  been  the 
custom  to  treat  passages  from  Homer,  from  Herodotus,  from  Ephorus,  and 
from  Pausanias,  as  if  they  were  so  many  interchangeable  bricks  to  build  up 
the  speculative  edifice ;  as  if  it  needed  no  proof  that  genealogies  found  sum- 
marized in  Pausanias  or  Apollodorus  '  were  taken  by  them  from  poems  of  the 
same  class  with  the  Thcogony,  or  from  ancient  treatises,  or  from  prevalent 
opinions  ; '  as  if,  further,  '  if  we  find  them  mentioning  the  Pelasgian  nation, 
they  do  at  all  events  belong  to  an  age  when  that  name  and  people  had 
nothing  of  the  mystery  which  they  bore  to  the  eyes  of  the  later  Greeks,  for 
instance  of  Strabo ; '  and  as  though  (in  the  same  passage)  a  statement  of 
.Stephanus  of  Byzantium  about  Pelasgians  in  Italy  '  were  evidence  to  the  same 
effect,  perfectly  unexceptionable  and  as  strictly  historical  as  the  case  will 
admit  of.' l 

No  one  doubts,  of  course,  either  that  popular  tradition  may  transmit,  or 
that  late  writers  may  transcribe,  statements  which  come  from  very  early,  and 
even  from  contemporary  sources.  But  this  is  quite  a  different  matter  from 
assuming,  as  a  working  hypothesis,  that  the  unauthenticated  statements  of 
late  writers  do  come  from  early  sources.  Even  where  such  a  statement  tallies 
with  a  statement  of  Homer,  or  with  the  results  of  excavation,  we  are  not 
justified  in  inferring,  on  that  account  only,  that  the  late  writer  had  Homer 
before  him,  any  more  than  that  he  had  himself  conducted  such  an  excavation. 
In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  he  may  equally  well  be  assumed 
to  have  got  his  information  from  a  quite  late  handbook,  or  from  an  imaginative 
author  who  for  once  by  chance  was  right. 

Most  recent  writers  meanwhile  admit,  tacitly,  that  authorities  do  vary 

1  Niebuhr,  History  of  Home  (tr.  Hare  and  Thirlwall  1837;  i.  p.  26. 


in  value,  and  that  ceteris  paribus  the  earlier  sources  are  more  trustworthy 
than  the  later.  But  the  reservation  'ceteris  paribus'  covers  a  great  deal;  for 
it  is  argued,  not  uncommonly,  that  Hecataeus,  for  example,  stands  much 
nearer  in  the  scale  to  Pausanias  than  he  does  to  Hesiod,  and  Hesiod  nearer 
to  Hecataeus  than  to  Homer  :  in  the  sense,  of  course,  that  between  Homel- 
and Hesiod  lies  a  great  political  convulsion,  involving  a  fatal  breach  with  the 
past ;  and  that  between  Hesiod  and  Hecataeus  lies  at  least  a  century  of 
strenuous  endeavour  to  bridge  that  gap,  and  '  restore '  the  missing  data  by 
strenuous  use  of  the  imagination. 

At  the  time  when  the  chronological  lacuna  between  Mycenaean  and 
Hellenic  Greece  was  still  unsurveyed,  a  considerable  service  was  rendered  by 
Mr.  Cecil  Torr,  in  an  experimental  reconstruction,111  in  which  every  interval  of 
time  which  he  was  able  to  demonstrate  was  '  written  down'  (so  to  speak)  to 
the  '  least  possible  '  dimensions;  somewhat  as  if  a  prudent  capitalist  to-day 
were  to  '  write  down '  to  SO  the  value  of  his  consols.  The  result  was  a 
chronological  scheme  which,  although  it  has  not  been  widely  adopted,  had  at 
least  the  merit  of  being  '  within  the  mark.'  It  called  attention,  besides,  to 
certain  other  matters  of  historical  method,  which  I  need  not  specify  here. 

Now  what  I  have  attempted  to  do,  in  this  essay,  is  to  make  a  similar 
experiment  with  the  ancient  statements  about  the  Pelasgians:  to  arrange 
them,  in  fact,  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  relative  antiquity  of  the  sources 
from  which  they  severally  become  first  known  to  us ;  and  to  use,  at  each 
stage,  as  commentary  upon  any  passage,  only  such  other  statements  as  we 
know  from  extant  authors  to  have  been  current  at  the  date  when  that  passage 
was  penned.  To  interpret  Homeric  passages,  that  is,  I  shall  use  only  Homeric 
evidence  and  the  physique  of  the  Aegean,  accessible  to  '  Homer '  as  to  us ; 
to  interpret  Hesiod  and  the  later  Epic,  only  Epic  sources ;  to  interpret 
Thucydides,  only  sources  of  at  least  fifth  century  date.  Not  until  I  reach 
the  authorities  of  the  age  of  Alexander,  shall  I  make  use  of  any  statement 
which  rests  merely  on  the  authority  of  Ephorus  or  his  kind.  In  this  way 
alone,  I  think,  can  we  be  certain  to  avoid  anachronism.  Much  else  about  the 
Pelasgians  may  very  likely  be  ancient  tradition,  but  it  cannot  be  proved  from 
extant  sources  to  be  so;  and  it  may,  on  the  other  hand,  find  a  more  probable 
context — if  not  an  assured  origin — lower  down,  when  once  we  have  constructed, 
on  the  hypothesis  of  'lowest  possible'  dates  for  each  phase,  the  outlines  of 
the  growth  of  the  Pelasgian  Theory. 

It  is  difficult  to  be  certain,  in  an  enquiry  of  this  kiud,  that  one  has 
really  left  preconceptions  behind;  but  I  may  at  all  events  confess  this,  that 
I  had  not  the  faintest  idea,  when  I  began  to  apply  this  method  to  my 
materials,  what  the  results  of  the  experiment  were  going  to  be.  Least  of  all 
was  I  prepared  for  the  form  which  the  Homeric  evidence  assumed,  when  once 
it  was  released  from  its  Hellenic  commentary;  or  for  the  part  which  I  have 
found  myself  compelled  to  assign  to  Ephorus  in  the  concoction  of  the  Great 
Pelasgian  Myth. 

1:1  C.  Torr    Memphis  and  Mycenae,  Cambridge,  1896. 

172  J.  L.  MYRES 

§   1. — Homeric  Evidence:  its  Two-fold  Character. 

To  take,  first  and  separate! y^the  Homeric  passages.11'  They  divide  at 
once  into  two  classes :  those  which  contain  the  substantival  forms  UeXaayos, 
UeXacryoi  and  those  which  contain  merely  the  adjective  Ue\aayi/c6<?.  In  the 
substantival  passages  it  is  a  fair  preliminary  hypothesis  that  the  poet  had  in 
his  mind  some  more  or  less  definite  conception  of  an  actual  people,  either 
still  existent  in  his  own  time  and  that  of  his  original  audiences ;  or,  if 
extinct,  familiar  both  to  him  and  to  his  audiences,  through  a  lively  and 
accepted  tradition,  as  recent  occupants  of  the  areas  in  which  he  places  them. 
In  the  adjectival  passages,  on  the  other  hand,  such  a  hypothesis  is  not 
legitimate.  These  do  not  indicate  more  than  that  the  place  or  personality  to 
which  the  poet  applies  the  adjective  'Pelasgian'  seemed  to  him,  and  presumably 
to  his  audience,  to  partake,  in  some  way,  of  the  Pelasgian  character  as  he  or 
they  understand  it.  These  passages  therefore  cannot  be  used  by  themselves  as 
evidence  that  either  the  audience  or  the  poet  had  any  experience  or 
immediate  reminiscence  of  actual  Pelasgian  inhabitants  in  the  area  or  about 
the  personage  to  which  the  adjective  is  applied.  And  when  we  come  to 
consider  this  class  of  passages  in  detail  (B.  below)  we  shall  see,  I  think,  that 
this  consideration  is  valid,  and  of  some  importance. 

|  2. — Substantival  UeXaayol  in  Homer. 

It  will  simplify  discussion  to  take  the  substantival  passages  first.     They 
are  as  follows  : — 

II.  2.  840-3  :    '\tttt66oos  8'  dye  (pu\a  TleXaaywv  ey^ecrtpcopcov, 
roiv  o'l  Adptaav  epi/3oo\aKa  vaierdaaKov 

TWV   ?]PX    T7T7TO^OO?   T€    UvXaiOS   t'  6'£o9  "A/3^09, 

vie  &va)  Aijdoio  YleXacryov  TevTap,i8ao. 

The  passage  stands  at  a  critical  point  in  the  structure  of  the  'Trojan 
Catalogue.'  Starting  from  Troy-Town,  in  1.  816,  the  poet  has  reviewed  (1) 
the  Trojans  themselves  (11.  816  ff.)  ;  (2)  their  Dardanian  neighbours  to  the 
N.E.  (819  ff.) ;  (3)  other  Trojans  from  Zeleia  (823  ff.)  on  the  lower  Aisepos, 
where  the  lowest  spurs  of  Ida  sink  into  the  Propontic  seaboard;  (4)  Adrasteia 

Ul  It  might    fairly  be   argued   that  account  on  the  view  that   relatively — though  of  course 

should    1»-    taken    hen    of  tin:  possibility  that  not   absolutely — these   minor   distinctions   are 

the  Odyssey  for  example  may  represent  a  later  unimportant  ;  and  that  even   if  some  parts  of 

phase  of  Homeric  belief  or  of  Aegean  history  'Homer'   may   possibly  be   approximately  as 

than  the  Iliad  ;  or  that  a  distinction  should  be  late  as  some  parts  of  '  Hesiod,'  clearness  will  be 

observed  between  data  supplied  by  the  'earlier'  gained,  without  sacrifice  of  truth,  by  treating 

or  the   'later'   parts  of  the  Iliad.      But,   quite  the   Homeric  Epic  as  a  single  group  of  data, 

apart   from   the   uncertainty   which   surrounds  and  Hesiod  and  the  other  fragments  of  Epic  as 

the  whole  question  of  such  dissection  of  the  a  distinct,    and  on  the  whole  well  contrasted 

Homeric  corpus,  I  have  thought  it  better  to  act  group. 


(simply  '  Adrastos'  town,'  like  Midaeion,  Kotyaion,  and  the  like)  with  Paisos 
(Apaisos),  and  Mt.  Tereia,  between  Parion  and  Lauipsakos  (835  If.) :  i.e.  the 
poet  has  reached  the  E.  margin  of  the  Troad,  and  is  returning  by  the  sea- 
coast  to  (5)  Perkote,  Praktios  (river),  Arisbe  (on  the  Selleis  river),  Abydos,  and 
Sestos.  With  the  mention  of  Sestos  we  have  passed  from  Asia  into  Europe. 
Then  come  the  Pelasgians  (1.  840):  then  (6)  the  Thracians,  'all  those  whose 
frontier  is  the  Hellespont '  845  :  then  (7)  the  Kikones  (11.  84-6  ff.),  who  are 
fixed  by  Od.  9.  39-40  in  their  historic  habitat  '  under  Ismaros,'  west  of  the 
lower  Hebros  :  then  (8)  the  Paeonians  (11.  848  ff.),  who  come  from  as  far  off  as 
the  Axios  river.  Here  the  confederacy  of  Priam  has  its  limit  westward  ; 
and  the  poet  starts  again  from  the  Troad,  and  strikes  out,  first  north-eastward 
through  Paphlagonia  and  beyond;  and  then  finally  southward,  through 
Mysia,  Phrygia,  Maeonia,  and  Caria,  to  Lycia,  where  the  confederacy  ends 
south-eastward.  Priam's  confederacy,  in  fact,  once  plotted  out  upon  the  map, 
reveals  itself  as  a  coalition  of  the  whole  northern  and  eastern  shores  of  the 
Aegean  against  a  '  blow  at  the  heart '  delivered  by  Agamemnon,  as  overlord 
of  the  south  and  east  from  Kos  and  Rhodes  to  Olympus,  Ithaca,  and  Dodona. 
Now  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  this  tripartite  list  is  in  correct  geographical 
order  so  far  as  it  goes  ;  and  the  single  omission  of  importance  (that  of 
Bithynia,  between  the  Troad  frontier  at  Zeleia  on  the  Aisepos,  and  the 
Paphlagonians)  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  («)  by  the  later  consensus  that 
the  historic  Bithynians  (like  the  Mygdones  of  the  Odryses  river,  inland  of 
Daskyleion  and  Myrlea)  were  Thracians-in-Asia,  whereas  for  the  Catalogue- 
poet  the  limit  of  Priam's  Thracians  is  the  Hellespont; 2  (b)  by  the  indication 
supplied  by  II.  3.  184  ff.  that  the  Phrygians  themselves  were  but  recently 
arrived  in  what  later  became  Bithynia,  and  were  still  cutting  their  way  up 
the  Sangarios  valley  in  the  early  manhood  of  King  Priam. 

The  Catalogue,  then,  sets  a  block  of  Pelasgians  between  the  home- 
country  of  the  Troad  and  the  Thracians ;  and  the  mention  of  Sestos  in  the 
previous  section,  along  with  Abydos  and  Arisbe,  shows  that  the  poet's  survey 
has  already  reached  and  crossed  the  Hellespont.  The  probability  therefore  is 
that  the  Pelasgians  of  the  Catalogue  occupied  an  area  between  the  Helles- 
pont at  Sestos,  and  the  proper  country  of  the  Thracians. 

At  this  point  a  geographical  consideration  comes  to  our  aid.  Between 
the  Isthmus  of  the  Chersonese,  and  the  headquarters  of  the  Thracians  in  the 
basin  of  the  Hebrus,  lies  the  rougher  and  more  hilly  tract  from  C.  Sarpedon 
to  the  Hieron  Oros,  which  in  historic  times  was  occupied  by  the  Caeni  and 
Apsinthians,  but  which,  though  overrun  thus  later  by  Thracian  tribes,  never 
became  wholly  incorporated  in  the  geographical  area  of  '  Thrace.'  It  is 
therefore  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  this  same  area  corresponds  with 
the  non-Thracian,  and  at  the  same  time  non-Hellespontine  area,  which  the 
poet  of  the  Catalogue  assigns  to  the  '  Pelasgians.' 

-  In  post-Homeric  time  we  shall  find  copious  Homeric  evidence  as  commentary  on   II 

evidence  of  this  Thrako-Pbrygian  thrusl  south-  but  only  because  the  event  under  discussion  is 

eastward  across    the     Hellespontine    area.     I  itself  i  post-Homeric, 

have  broken  here  my  rule  of  not  using  post- 

174  J.  L.  MYRES 

It  was  inevitable  that  the  occurrence  of  the  place-name  Larisa  in  this 
passage  should  give  rise  to  copious  speculation  :  particularly  as  one  of  the 
principal  towns  of  Thessaly  bore  this  name,  and  lay  at  no  very  great  distance 
either  from  '  Pelasgian  '  Argos  or  from  '  Pelasgian '  Zeus  at  Dodona ;  and 
another  Larisa  (L.  Kremaste,  not  mentioned  in  Homer)  lay  later  closely 
adjacent  to  the  former,  in  the  territory  assigned  to  Protesilaus.  Prof. 
Ridgeway,  for  example,'2a  pronounces  without  hesitation  for  the  Thessalian 
Larisa,  and  avoids  the  obvious  difficulty,  how  people  from  the  Thessalian 
Larisa  should  be  fighting  on  Priam's  side,  by  laying  stress  on  the  form 
vaLerdaaKov  as  meaning  '  used  to  live  there,  but  have  ceased  to  live  there 
now.'  But  exactly  the  same  grammatical  form  is  used  of  the  men  of 
Karystos  and  Styra  (1.  539)  ;  and  there  is  no  more  reason  in  the  one  case 
than  in  the  other,  for  supposing  that  they  did  not  intend  to  go  back  to  their 
respective  homes,  as  soon  as  the  war  was  over.  Further,  the  form  vaierdacncov 
does  not  differ  appreciably  in  meaning  from  the  ordinary  imperfect,  evaiov, 
which  is  used  for  example  (1.  681)  of  the  Achaean  Hellenes  who  inhabited 
Pelasgic  Argos  ;  nor  in  the  significance  of  the  tense  from  the  /caXevvTo  of 
1.  684.  Had  these  people  then  migrated  long  since  from  South  Thessaly, 
and  ceased  to  be  called  Myrmidons  ? 

Moreover,  even  supposing  that  vaierdaaKov  had  the  meaning  which  is 
suogested,  it  proves  nothing  more  as  to  the  Thessalian  Larisa  than  it  would 
prove  about  any  other  of  the  numerous  towns  of  this  name.  The  place-name 
Larisa,  in  fact,  is  so  common  in  the  Aegean,  that  it  is  of  no  practical  use  as  a 
landmark.  Moreover,  so  common  a  name  probably  had  at  first  a  merely 
descriptive  meaning.  What  if  Adpiaav  vat,erdacrKov  should  be  found  to  have 
meant  that  they  '  dwelt  in  a  Burgh '  ?  If  however  it  were  legitimate  to 
'  count  heads '  in  such  a  matter,  or  to  neglect  the  lateness  of  our  authorities 
for  all  these  place-names,  the  distribution  of  the  name  Larisa  on  the  map 
would  distinctly  favour  a  Hellespontine  home  for  the  Homeric  Pelasgi  as 
against  a  Thessalian  ;  for  a  clear  majority  of  the  known  sites  are  strewn 
down  the  Anatolian  coast,  from  the  Troad  southwards,  in  exactly  the  same 
manner  as  are,  for  example,  the  towns  with  the  name  Pedasa,  which  looks  as 
if  it  had  the  same  termination,  and  occupies  the  analogous  place  in  the  ethno- 
logical cycle  of  the  Leleges;  and,  for  that  matter,  also,  as  those  with  the  place- 
name  Magnesia,  which  has  likewise  its  counterpart  on  the  Thessalian  side. 

As  long  as  it  was  thought  admissible  to  regard  the  Pelasgians  as  an 
<  Asiatic  people,' 3  any  one  of  these  Asiatic  towns  would  have  served  the 
purpose  of  this  passage.  And  if  it  were  not  for  the  specific  mention  of  Sestos, 
it  would  be  tempting  to  regard  these  Pelasgians  as  covering  the  basin  of  the 
Satnioeis  which  is  not  separately  mentioned  in  the  Catalogue,  though  two 
heroes  are  described  as  coming  from  thence  to  the  war.4     But  against  this 

2a  Early  Age  of  Greece  (Cambridge   1901)  i.  4  II.  6.  34,  14.  445.     This  Larisa  might  then 

pt  172.  be  identified  with  a  little  town  of  thai  name  on 

on  the  evidence  of  II.  10.429;  on  which  the  coast  about  five  miles  south  of  Alexandria 

see  below.  Troas. 


identification  the  following  considerations  are  decisive:  (1)  it  would  utterly 
dislocate  the  geographical  sequence  of  the  tribe-groups ;  (2)  this  area  is 
definitely  assigned  in  other  Homeric  passages  to  the  Leleges/'  who  (with  their 
neighbours,  the  Kilikes)  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Catalogue  ;  (3)  the  epithet 
ipi/3ob\a/ca  is  hardly  applicable  to  the  mere  coast-strip  some  four  miles  lone 
by  two  wide,  which  is  all  that  the  Troad  Larisa  can  offer;  (4)  when  the 
Pelasgian  Hippothoon  is  killed  in  77.  17.  301,  it  is  ttjX'  d-rrb  Aaplarjs  ipifico- 
Xa/cos,  and  the  Homeric  usage  of  rrjXe  is  entirely  against  its  application  to 
a  town  only  fifteen  miles  (on  a  straight  road)  from  Troy,  and  fully  in 
sight  of  it.0 

It  is  probable  then  that  the  '  deep-soiled '  Larisa  of  the  Pelasgians  in  the 
Catalogue  is  yet  another  unidentified  site  which  bore  this  wide-spread  name; 
and  that  it  is  to  be  sought,  with  the  Pelasgians  of  the  Catalogue  themselves, 
on  the  European  side  of  the  Hellespont;  not  improbably  in  the  low  fertile 
ground  round  the  head  of  the  Black  Gulf,  near  the  site  of  the  later 


II.  10.  428-31  :  7rpc<?  fikv  dXb<;  Kape<?  Kal  Tlaiove?  dyKuXoro^oc 
Kal  AeXeye?  Kal  Kavtccoves  hlot  re  UeXaayoi, 
77/305  Byyu/3/3?;?  8'  eXa^ov  Avkioc  Mucrot  t  dykpwyoi 
Kal  t&pvyes  nnroSa/AOi  Kal  M^'o^e?  liriroKopvcrTaL 

The  passage  is  Dolon's  statement  of  the  order  in  which  certain  allies  of 
Priam  had  been  assigned  their  camping-grounds  on  either  flank — irpb?  d\6^. 
7rpo?  ©u/x/3/3?;? — of  Troy-Town.  The  names  are  not  in  geographical  order  ; 
the  Karians  are  separated  from  the  majority  of  the  Asiatic  allies,  and  are 
brigaded,  so  to  speak,  with  Paeonians  and  Leleges  ;  and  the  Pelasgians  are 
separated  both  from  the  Paeonians,  and  from  the  Thracians.  The  latter  are 
expressly  stated  in  the  sequel  (1.  433)  to  have  arrived  late,  and  occupied 
a  separate  camp  by  themselves.  The  passage  would,  indeed,  have  barely 
deserved  mention,  were  it  not  that  some  modern  writers7  have  quoted  it  i<> 
prove  that  the  Pelasgians  are  an  Asiatic  people,  ignoring  not  only  the  whole 
tenour  of  the  context,  but  the  further  circumstance  that  whatever  conclusions 
are  drawn  from  the  passage  as  to  the  geographical  situation  of  the  Pelasgians 
must  equally  apply  to  that  of  the  Paeonians  in  the  preceding  line.      Yet  no 

5  II.   10.   429   (Leleges,   without  locality,   in       site. 

tli.-  camp-passage);  II.  20.  92-6  (Leleges  Mini  :  E.g.     Busolt,   Gr.   Qeseh.    i.-    165 

Trojans   inhabit    Lyrnessos   and    Pedasos   :  //.  unter  liistorischeu  Stammen  Kleinasiens.3      To 

21.  86-7  (Leleges  live    on   the   Satnioeis    1!..  justify  this,  he  omits  the  Paeonians  from  his  list : 

and  Pedasos  is  their  capital).  compare  p.    li»'»   '  kleinasiatische  P.'    Comnare 

6  E.g.  in  the  whole  Trojan  Catalogue  only  also  Holm,  Or.  Geseh.  i.  p.  69.  'Sie  werden 
the  Alizones  and  the  Lycians  emne  Ti)\6d*v  :  in  erwahnt  als  asiatische  Hulfstruppen  der  Tro- 
II.  16.  ■!'■'>'■'>  Zeus  "f  Dodona  is  ti)\66i  valwv,  janer';  p.  70.  ' Nach  diesen  Stellen  (the 
i.e.  remote  from  Olympus,  or  from  Phthia,  Homeric  passages)  /n  artheilen  sind  sie  ein 
Strabo's  phrase  about  the  Troad  Larisa,  Iv  ityei  Stamm  der  in  Epii  ten  and  Kleina- 
re\4tts,  is  wholly  justified  when   tested  on  the  sien 

176  J.  L.  MY  RES 

one,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has  ventured  to  contend  that  the  Paeonians  are  an 
Asiatic  people.8 


Od.  19.  175-7  (describing  the  peoples  of  Crete) :     e'y  puev  'A%aiol, 

ev  8'  'KreoKptjTe^  p,eya\i]Tope<;,  ev  Be  K.v8cov€S, 
Acopiees  re  Tpi%di/ce<;,  Slot  re  Y\.e\acr<yoL 

Note  here,  first,  that,  as  the  context  shows,  the  object  of  the  poet  is  to 
'  add  verisimilitude  '  to  one  of  Odysseus'  many  inventions.  Any  information 
which  it  gives,  therefore,  may  be  assumed  to  have  been  correct  information 
for  the  poet's  original  audience,  as  well  as  for  the  presumed  audience  of 
Odysseus.  The  passage  therefore  describes  the  populations  of  Crete  as  they 
appeared  at  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  poem  ;  and  it  is  consequently 
of  the  first  value  as  evidence  in  the  present  enquiry. 

At  first  sight  it  is  not  obvious  how  a  tribe,  whom  elsewhere  Homeric 
poets  only  know  as  a  European  people  bordering  on  the  Hellespont,  should 
also  have  had  an  abode  in  Crete.  But  the  context  in  which  the  Pelasgians 
are  introduced  seems  to  supply  a  clue.  Of  the  other  peoples  enumerated, 
two,  the  Eteokretes  and  the  Kydones,  may  probably  be  assumed  to  be  indi- 
genous (in  a  general  sense)  ;  the  former  in  the  east  of  the  island,  where 
tradition  and  archaeology  alike  attest  the  survival  in  historic  times  of  a 
distinct  type  of  language  and  culture ;  the  latter  in  the  west,  viral  iroha 
veiaiov — so  to  speak — of  the  mountains  of  Sphakia.  The  Achaeans,  on  the 
other  hand,  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  a  southerly  section  of  the  Achaeans  of 
the  Greek  mainland ;  and  these  we  may  accept,  on  Homeric  authority,  as 
comparatively  recent  immigrants.9 

There  remain  the  Dorians  and  the  Pelasgians :  both  —  like  the 
Peloponnesian  Achaeans  of  Herodotus  viii.  73 — in  an  intermediate  position, 
neither  exclusively  Cretan,  like  the  Kydones  and  Eteokretes,  nor  quite 
recent  eVr/A-fSe?  like  the  Achaeans  of  Idomeneus.  Anything  therefore  which 
we  may  infer  from  this  passage  as  to  the  Cretan  Pelasgians  must  either  be 
applicable,  provisionally  at  all  events,9*  to  the  Cretan  Dorians,  or  there  must 
be  countervailing  evidence,  of  Homeric  date,  to  enable  us  to  differentiate  the 
two  cases.  But  the  latter  alternative  is  out  of  the  question,  for  Dorians  are 
not  elsewhere  mentioned  at   all   in  Homeric  literature.     We   are  therefore 

8  Relying  on  II.  2.  848-9,  16.  287-8,  I  make  —Zeus. 

a  present  to   the   adversary  of  Hilt.    5.  23.  98,  ":l  1 1' it  were  possible  to  demonstrate  that  any 

where  the  force  majeure  of  Darius  makes  them  real  ethnic  or  political  convulsion  occurred  in 

Asiatic'  for  a  season,  as  strategical  needs  do  the  Aegean  after  the  composition  of  Iliad  ii 

here!  but  before  the  composition  of  Odyssey  xix,  this 

''  For  the  pedigree  of  Idomeneus  see  the  lines  argument  would  of  course  be  invalidated.     This 

which  immediately  follow  Od.   19.  178-81,  and  however  is  one  of  those  prospective  refinements 

II.    13.    449-453:  it  'goes    up  to   a   god,'    as  in  the  treatment  of  these  data  which,  as  I  have 

]|.    itaeus  would  say,  in  the  third  generation:  explained    already,    I    have  felt  at  liberty  to 

[domeneus — Deucalion  (the  Argonaut) — Minos  neglect,  in  the  interest  of  the  main  argument. 


confined  by  our  present  purpose  to  such  inferences  only  as  would    hold    o-00d 
equally  of  Dorians.10 

Now  the  obvious  inference,  as  to  the  Pelasgians,  is  that  the  Cretan 
Pelasgians  were  so  called  by  the  poet  because  they  were  known  by  him  to  be 
a  branch  of  the  Hellespontine  Pelasgians  :  they  are  distinguished  from  the 
old  population  of  the  island,  and  linked  with  a  people  whom  we  have  strong 
reason  for  believing  to  be  of  more  northerly  origin  ;  and  geographical 
considerations  once  more  confirm  the  impression  that  the  PelasgTans  also 
hail  from  the  north.  The  north  wind  prevails  in  the  Aegean  area°for  by  fai 
the  greater  part  of  the  year:  Homeric  sailors  at  all  events  were  well 
acquainted  with  its  behaviour;  and  Crete,  lying  as  it  does  like  a  breakwater 
across  the  mouth  of  the  Aegean,  was  probably  already  then  the  same  dreaded 
'lee-shore'  that  it  has  been  ever  since,  for  every  boat  which  goes  adrift 
south  of  the  Dardanelles.11  Even  on  the  modern  map  of  Crete,  place-names 
like  ToTroXia,  BovXydpovs,  StcXafiiSoxvpi,  t,cXa{3oTrovXa— perhaps  also 
Pcoa<ToXo>pi  and  'Pv<raa-<nriTia  ,—  are  sufficient  evidence  of  what  happens  ; 
and  the  post-Homeric  stories  of  Phrygian  settlements,  no  less  than  the 
occurrence  of  Phrygian  cults,  and  of  North-Aegean  place-names  like  Aaptaa, 
"18a,  and  the  Macedonian  II68va(  'Upciirvrva)1-  and  Alov  (A/a)  go  far  to 
confirm  the  inference  already  drawn  from  the  geography. 

The  mention  of  Macedonian  place-names  Recall's  us  to  the  question 
whether  the  argument  is  equally  applicable,  as  it  should  be,  to  the  Cretan 
Dorians  of  the  Odyssey.  The  non-mention  of  Dorians  on  the  Homeric 
mainland  makes  it  impossible  to  complete  the  parallel  directly  ;  but  there  is 
another  case  of  silence  in  the  poems,  so  significant  that  it  can  hardly  be  due 
to  chance ;  while,  if  it  is  not  due  to  chance,  it  comes  very  near  supplying  the 
missing  link  in  our  reasoning.  Of  all  the  coast-line  of  the  Aegean,  from 
Malea  to  the  coast  of  Lycia,  only  one  section  is  unaccounted  for  in  the 
Catalogues  of  Iliad  2.  Priam's  confederacy  ranges,  as  we  have  seen,  from 
Lycia  to  the  Hellespont,  and  from  the  Hellespont  to  the  river  Axios  : 
Agamemnon's  allies  extend  from  Rhodes  and  Kos  to  Peloponnese  and  the 
Western  Islands,  and  thence  to  Oloosson  (Elassona)  on  the  northern  frontier 
of  Thessaly.  But  of  the  coast  of  Macedon  itself,  from  the  foot  of  Olympus  to 
the  mouth  of  the  Axios,  there  is  not  a  word  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 

10  This  point  of  view  was  in  vogue  already  in  reverse    view    [Early  jig  86) 
late   antiquity.      Andron   for   example  (I'r.    3,  '  As  it  is  an  tfand  far  removed  from  the  1 
quoted  by  Strabo   175)  would  seem  to  derive  all  Greece,    it   was   much   less   likely  to  ha 
three  alike  from  Thessaly  :  impelled,  no  doubt,  population  mixed  by  constant  advances  of  other 
by  the  later  belief  that  there  were  Pelasgians  as  tribes,    such   as  took    place   in   the  histoi 
well    as   Achaeans  and    Dorians   in   Thessaly.  northern  Greece  and  northern  Ita'y.'     What   1 
robs  ».\v  olv  -Ere^pTjTas  k<x\  rols  KvSwias  avr6-  say  in  the  u-xt  rests  only  on  my  own  expei 
XOovas  u7Top|ot  eiKo?,  robs   5e  \oinovs  en-{)\vSas.                            on   that   ol     the    people    I    hive    met 
ots  eK    @(a<ra\ias    <pr)a\u  eA0(7v  "AvSpuv    t?";s  there,  and  on  the  history  of  A                  gation 
Aa>p/Soj  nev  irpSrtpov  vvv  5e  'E<rTiaia>Ti'5oj  \eyo-  since  Homeric  times. 

n<vi)s.     Hut    An  lion's  guess  is  neither  Homer  i-  Xa^atuov  itthlov  at  Hierapyti 

nor  Homeric.  A«lp«ra=Gortyna.  St.  Byz.      •.  T6prw. 

11  Trofessor  Ridgeway  has  taken  exactly  the 

H.S. — VOL.   xxvir.  v 


the  epic.  Now  if  the  unanimous  Hellenic  tradition 13  is  correct,  that  the 
Dorians  of  historic  times  made  their  immediate  entry  into  Greece  in  post- 
Homeric  times,  and  from  the  north  ;  and  if,  as  Herodotus  states,  in  the  stage 
which  immediately  preceded  that  entry  they  were  '  described  as  a  Macedonian 
folk,'  it  would  be  exactly  this  strip  of  coast  which  would  fall  first  into  the 
hands  of  the  new-comers,  and  give  them  access  to  the  sea.  It  would  be  this 
strip  also,  consequently,  which  would  first  fall  out  of  the  ken  of  Aegean 
political  life  in  the  event  of  invasion  from  the  north.  Macedon  in  fact 
was  already  in  the  Homeric  Age  the  thin  end  of  the  black  wredge  of 
barbarism,  which  two  generations  later  was  to  be  driven  into  the  heart  of  the 

In  the  light  of  this  consideration,  the  occurrence  of  a  Dorian  vanguard 
in  Homeric  Crete  becomes  not  only  natural  but  almost  inevitable:  as  inevitable 
in  fact,  under  the  geographical  conditions,  then  and  now,  as  the  occurrence  there 
of  a  vanguard  of  Pelasgians ;  supposing  only  that  the  Pelasgians,  as  the 
previous  passages  have  sufficiently  suggested,  were  a  people  of  the  north-east 
angle  of  the  Aegean,  exposed  to  closely  analogous  pressure  seawards  from  the 
Thraco-Phrygian  movement  across  their  Hinterland}^ 

§   3 — The  Adjective  HeXaayi/cos  in  Homer. 

It  illustrates  well  the  peculiar  methods  of  criticism  which  have  been 
tolerated  hitherto,  that  the  two  Homeric  passages  on  which  the  greatest 
stress  has  been  laid  by  commentators  on  this  topic  are  those  in  which  the 
Pelasgians  themselves  are  not  expressly  named,  or  stated  to  exist  in  the  areas 
in  question  ;  but  where  the  mere  adjective  UeXao-yt/cos  is  used  to  express 
some  attribute  which  in  the  poet's  mind  recalled  analogous  attributes  in  the 
Pelasgians  who  were  known  to  himself;  and  where,  moreover,  it  is  possible 
without  going  outside  the  text  of  the  Iliad  itself  to  set  up  a  fair  probability 
that  there  were  not  any  Pelasgian  inhabitants  at  the  period  described  in  the 
poems.     The  two  passages  are  as  follows  : — 


//.  2.  681-4  :   N?f  av  rov<;  oauot  to  UeXaayucbv  "Apyos  ei'atov, 
ot  t  '  AXov  ol  t  '  A\o7ri)v  oi  re  'Tprjylv   evi/xovro, 
oi  r   el-xpv  <&6li]v  ?}S'  'EXXdda  /caXXiyvvai/ca, 
Mup/uSoi>€9  8e  KaXevvTO  KaV'RXXrjves  teal  ' A-^aiOi. 

It  will  be  admitted,  I  think,  that  it  is  a  little  unfortunate  for  the  supporters 

13  Here,  as  above,  p.  173,  I  am  using  post-  Attica,  and  in  Naxos,  which  belong,  apparently, 
Homeric  evidence  solely  to  establish  a  post-  to  the  same  immediately  post-Homeric  period  as 
Homeric  event.  those    Thracian  incursions  into   Hellespontine 

14  If  further  analogies  be  desired,  they  are  Asia,  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  a 
supplied  by  the  copious  Hellenic  tradition  of  Bithynia.  Bui  t lie  extant  evidence  for  all  this 
the    Thracian    settlements     in      Euboea,      in  is  comparatively  late. 


of  current  '  Pelasgic  Theories,'  that  on  the  one  occasion  in  the  Homeric  poems 
where  the  epithet  '  Pelasgic'  is  applied  to  any  locality  at  all,  the  poet  should 
have  so  rapidly  corrected  any  false  impressions  which  this  might  convey,  by 
adding  that  the  people  who  actually  lived  there  were  not  called  'Pelasgians  ' 
or  anything  of  the  kind,  but  were  in  fact  specifically  '  Achaeans,'  and  indeed 
uniquely  'Hellenes.'  Note,  moreover,  that  the  UeXacryi/cbv  "Apyos  of  Homer 
is  a  quite  different  region  of  Thessaly  from  that  which  contains  Adpicra. 

The  difficulty  is  usually  evaded15  by  explaining  that  though  HeXacryiKov 

^^709  was  held  by  Hellenes  in  the  time  of  the  poet,  or  in  the  time  of  the 

Trojan  War,  it  had  once  upon  a  time  been  inhabited  by  Pelasgians.  and  that 

possibly  descendants  of  these  Pelasgians    may  have  survived  as   subjects  of 

Achaean    and    Hellenic   conquerors.      All    this   however   is    commentator's 

inference,  not  the  statement  of  the   Homeric  poet;    and    it  will  hardly  be 

contended  that  a  passage  like  this  stands  in  the   same   plane  of  authority 

with  that  in  the  'Trojan  Catalogue'  {II.  2.  843).     What  it   was  about  the 

Thessalian  Argos  which  struck  the  poet  or  his  audience  as  '  Pelasgic,'  it  is 

probably  too  late  to  determine  ;   but  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  phrase 

may  have  been  suggested  by  some  such  remains  of  early  or  at  all  events  pi"e- 

Achaean  fortifications  as  are  so  prominent  later  in  Attic  legends.     No  such 

connotation  however  would  be  possible  at  all  until  the  Pelasgic  name  had 

ceased  to  be  merely  denotative,  and  had  come  to  be  used  in  just  such  a  general 

sense  of  '  prehistoric  '  as  would  naturally  prompt  the  observation,  which  follows, 

that  though   the   town16  was  of  immemorial  age,  its    inJtabitants  now  were 

Achaeans,  Hellenes,  and   Myrmidons,  and  of  quite  recent  institution  there. 

And  this  is  all  that,  for  the  moment,  we  are  concerned  to  show.     '  Pelasgian  " 

in  fact  had  already  two  senses  in  Homeric  Greek:   it  meant,  as  a  substantive, 

certain  actual  allies  of  Priam,  aud  their  congeners  in  Crete:  as  an  adjective 

it  meant  'prehistoric' — 'that  which  once  was,  but  most  emphatically  is  not 

now.'    ( )f  course  the  occurrence  of  a  connotative  adjective  of  this  kind  is  as  far 

from  disproving,  as  it  is  from  proving,  that  the  facts  were  as  the  poet  seems  to 

have  believed:  'prehistoric'  is  not  by  any  means  the  same  as  '  unhistoric' 

All  that  I  contend  for  is  that  if  a  Pelasgian  population  of  this  Argos  is  ever 

assumed  to  have  existed,  it  shall  be  on  some  more  convincing  data   than  can 

be  derived  from  this  pass;  _ 

The  other  adjectival  passage  is  the  phrase  in  the  prayer  of  Achilles  :  — 

18  E.g.    Busolt,    Or.    Oesch.   i.-'    K>">      "Das  or  th                 is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the 

Bpitheton    Pelasgikon  setzt  jedenfalls   voraus,  argument.     Analog]                 that  in  the  Cata- 

iii    Thessalien    Pelasger     wohnten    oder  logne,  ;<-  it  stands,  a  specific  toton  is  intended. 

hut  hatten:1  cf.  167  ' so  mussten wohl  die  In  any  case  we  must  note  that  to  neXaayucbv 

ichaitchen und  vol                 hen  "Apyos  in  Home]  means  a  quite  different  part  of 

autochthonen   Bewohner   des   Landes  gewesen  Thessaly  from   the  U(\ao-,iwT:s  of    Hellanicus 

sein.'  SeealsoS.  Bruck,  ','"■  ind  that  the  area  "f  this 

tradiderint  (Breslau  1884),  p.  5.  nf\aoyitvrts  is  quite  differently  accounted  for 

;  Whether  m  ne\atTyiKbv"Apyos  means  the  in   the    Homeric    Catalogue;    is                   the 

ranging  with   Hah-.  Alope,  and  the  resl  ountry  round  the  Thessalian  Larisa. 

N  2 

180  J.   L.   MY  RES 


11.  1G.  233-5  :  ZeO,  ava,  <\(D&covale,  UeXaa-yiKe,  TifkoOt  vaicov, 
A&)8c6v?7?  fieSewv  Svo-xeifjiipov  •  dficpi  he  SeWoi 
crol  vaiovcr    v7ro<f>r}Tai,  dvnrTOTrohes,  ^a/jiaievvai. 

Here  we  should  note,  first,  that  it  is  not  quite  clear  why  Achilles — most 
Hellenic  of  all  the  Achaeans,  according  to  II.  2.  081  ff.  above — should  pray  in 
his  deepest  need  to  a  Zeus  '  of  the  Pelasgians,' 17  if  by  this  he  meant  actual 
contemporary  non-Hellenic  inhabitants  of  Dodona.  To  assume  that  Zeus  of 
Dodona  is  a  local  '  Pelasgian '  deity  annexed  by  Achaean  conquerors  is  to  beg 
the  question.  Moreover,  the  more  local  a  deity  is,  in  all  ages,  the  more 
restricted  is  his  sphere  of  influence  :  for  an  Achaean  at  Troy  the  unqualified 
Zeus  of  the  rest  of  the  Iliad,  anthropomorphic  and  TroXvTrXdi'ijros  /copra  as 
the  Achaeans  themselves,  was  surer  defence  than  a  Gau-gott  in  Epirus. 

Next,  the  poet  of  the  Catalogue  at  all  events  was  aware  that  the  actual 
inhabitants  of  Dodona  were  no  more  Pelasgians  than  were  those  of  '  Pelasgic 
Argos  : '  for  11.  2.  749  expressly  describes  them  as  'Ei/t^ve?  (Aenianes)  and 
Perrhaebians,  both  of  them  well-established  and  wide-spread  Thessalian 
peoples  who  persisted  into  Hellenic  times  in  this  region,1"0  and  are  in  no 
sense  identifiable  with  Pelasgians.18  Here  therefore,  as  in  South  Thessaly^ 
we  have  only  the  name,  not  the  people  themselves,  in  Homeric  times ;  but 
here,  fortunately,  we  have  something  of  a  clue,  which  was  wanting  wholly  in 
Thessaly,  as  to  why  the  Pelasgian  name  was  appropriate  to  the  cult  of  Zeus 
of  Dodona. 

If  there  were  two  points  of  behaviour  on  which  an  Achaean,  whether 
chieftain,  or  poet,  or  audience,  was  scrupulously  careful  in  daily  life,  it  was  in 
the  use  of  the  bath,  and  in  the  choice  and  arrangement  of  his  bedding.  If 
there  were  any  two  points  therefore  in  which  the  dancing-dervishes  of  Dodona 
would  seem  remarkable  and  repulsive  in  the  eyes  of  an  Achaean,  it  would  be 
that  they  were  dvnrroTrohes,  yajxatevvac ;  and  the  only  possible  excuse  for 
such  behaviour  in  the  ministers  of  a  god  to  whom  an  Achaean  chief  could 
pray  thus  as  to  his  own  god,  would  be  that  this  was  actually  part  of  the 
immemorial  observance,  and  came  down  from  '  prehistoric,'  that  is  to  say  (as 
in  Thessaly)  from  '  Pelasgian  '  times. 

I  admit  that  at  one  time  I  was  puzzled  by  the  intrusion,  at  such  a 
moment,  of  details  so  grotesque  and  so  pedantic ;  especially  as  there  was  no 
evidence  either  of  interpolation  in  the  prayer  itself,  or  of  '  late '  tastelessness 
in  the  context ;  and  consequently  no  doubt  that  we  have  here  as  genuine 
and  fervent  a  prayer  as  the  poet  could  frame  for  his  hero.     But  we  have  only 

Busolt,  i.-  165,    conjectures  that  Zeus   of  17a  E.g.  Busolt,  i.2  165. 

Dodona    'audi    rter     einheimisehe    Gotl     der  18  Except  of  course  in  so  far  as  Pelasgian  can 

Pelasgischen  Thessaliens  war. '  This  presupposes  be  forced  to  mean  the  'Mediterranean  Race'  of 

the  existence  of  a  Thessalian   Dodona  such  as  modern  Italian  ethnologists  ;  and  even  hen-   I 

was  invented  by  Unger  {Philol.  Suppl.  Bd.  ii.  have   my   doubts  whether   the    populations  of 

1863,  pp.  377  ff.)on  the  basis  oi  a  note  ofSuidas.  Pindus  would  be  accepted  by  ethnologists  as  in 

Cf.  Niese,  /A-./'.  Schiffukatalog.  p.  43.  any  true  sense  -Mediterranean.' 


to  glance  at  our  own  Book  of  Common  Prayer  to  see  that  the  practice 
of  piling  up  descriptive  phrases  in  invocation  is  not  confined  to  Homeric 
liturgy;  and  it  does  ool  need  great  experience  of  popular  extempore  prayer, 
to  confirm  the  observation  that  the  descriptive  invocations  which  mean  most 
to  the  suppliant  are  often  quite  ludicrous  to  the  bystander.  What  the 
function  of  such  descriptive  invocations  may  be  is  not  yet  clear.  M  - 
probably  tiny  are  of  the  nature  of  a  pass-word,  intimating  to  the  deity,  by 
allusion  to  some  intimate  quality  or  mystic  rite,  that  the  suppliant  is 
himself  initiate  and  lit  to  be  heard.  But  doubtless  they  serve  also  to  express 
and  to  enhance  the  suppliant's  mental  presentment  of  the  recipient  of  his 
prayer  ;  and  also,  no  doubt,  like  picturesque  abuse,  to  attract  the  attention  of 
a  god  who,  for  the  moment,  peradventure  sleepeth. 

In  this  sense  then,  that  he  was  a  god  with  an  ancient  and  unusual  ritual, 
Zeus  of  Dodona  may  conceivably  have  been  ' Pelasgic;'  and  certainly  not 
demonstrably  in  any  other.  It  is  exactly  as  if  a  man  nowadays  should 
describe  Stonehenge  as  '  Druidical.'  No  word  is  said  in  the  text  as  to 
worship  paid  by  Pelasgians  either  recent  or  extinct;  and  no  Pelasgians  can 
be  shown,  on  Homeric  evidence  at  all  events,  to  have  existed  in  Homeric 
times  nearer  than  Crete  and  the  Hellespont. 

On  the  other  hand,  each  of  these  two  adjectival  passages,  taken  literally 
and  in  connexion  with  Homeric  passages  solely,  does  seem  to  suggest  that 
adjectivally  '  Pelasgian '  meant  already  not  merely  'prehistoric,'  but  either 
positively  '  pre-Achaean,'  or  negatively  merely  '  non- Achaean  ' :  that  in  tact 
the  correlative — as  well  as  connotative — usage,  which  predominated  in 
Hellenic  times,  was  already  familiar  in  the  Homeric  Age. 

6  4. —  The  Origin  of  the  Connotatm    Usage  of  ' Pelasgian'  in  Homer. 

How  did  this  antithesis  between  'Pelasgian'  and  'Achaean'  arise? 
Again  a  probable  answer  seems  to  suggest  itself,  when  ouce  we  refrain  from 
contaminating  Homeric  texts  with  the  later  Hellenic  commentary.  An.  _ 
all  their  references  to  earlier  times  the  Homeric  poets  know  no  such 
universal  'gathering  of  the  clans'  as  that  which  rallied  to  the  aid  ot 
Aleuelaos.  The  Trojan  Expedition  then,  as  Thucydides  was  aware,  was 
probably  the  first  exploit — not  excepting  even  the  original  Achaean  Invasion, 
which  may  well  have  been  gradual — which  was  in  the  strict  sense  Panhel 
and  so  the  first  occasion  on  which  a  common  designation  was  required 
for  the  members  of  the  great  confederacy,  Hence  two  phenomena :  firstly, 
a  struggle  for  survival  among  several  generic  names,  'Apyetoi,  AavaoL,  Ayaioly 
with  a  marked  predominance  of  the  last  named;  secondly,  the  beginnings 
— under  the  literary  stress  of  the  compilation  of  the  catalogue — of  a 
new  use  of  an  originally  merely  tribal  name  'K\\//it>.  not  raerelj 
Bynonymous  both  with  the  specific  Mup/uudovet  "//"'  with  the  generic  A^aioi 
but  also  as  a  characterization- word  to  express  connotal  vly  that  dawning 
'  Hellenism '  which  was  coming   I  bhe  common  bend  between  chief  and 

people,  as   well  as  between  chief  and  chief.     This  latter  connotati\      -     - 

182  J.   L.  MYRES 

moreover,  comes  out  more  clearly  still  in  the  obviously  '  coined '  word 
UaveWijves  in  the  description  of  Aias  a  few  lines  further  on.1Sa  For  Aias  was 
not  in  the  strict  sense  a  '  Hellene'  (i.e.  a  Myrmidon-Achaean)  at  all. 

The  Homeric  Achaeans,  then,  were  brought  to  the  very  brink  of 
'  Hellenism  '  by  the  crisis  of  the  Trojan  War ;  and  in  the  compilation  of  the 
Catalogue  the  momentous  name  came  to  light.  What  determined,  then,  the 
choice  of  a  correlative  ?  In  all  probability,  the  same  great  crisis,  and  its 

Thucydides  explains  the  absence  of  the  word  fiapfidpovs  in  Homeric 
Greek,  Sid  to  /nrjh'  "EWrjvds  iron.  But  the  converse  also  is  valid  :  as  soon  as 
the  Hellenic  peoples  began  to  feel  the  need  of  a  common  denomination  for 
themselves,  the  need  arose  also  for  a  common  word  for  '  non-Hellenic'  The 
Homeric  poets  had  however  no  single  generic  word  for  the  confederates  of 
Priam,  and  the  circumstance,  that  the  war  was  mainly  a  siege  of  Troy,  made 
the  name  T^we?,  and  its  quasi-synonyms  AdpSavoi,  Tev/cpoi  more  nearly  ade- 
quate than  might  otherwise  have  been  the  case. 

Pass  on  however  to  the  period  which  immediately  followed  the  war. 
Troy-town  had  fallen;  the  hegemony  of  Priam  was  at  an  end;  extensive 
settlements  of  Achaean  '  Hellenes,'  as  the  place-names  19  and  the  archaeological 
evidence  show,  occurred  on  the  Troad  coast ;  and  the  need  for  a  generic  name 
for  the  neighbouring  tribes  recurred  with  renewed  force.  Landwards  in  Asia 
Minor,  indeed,  the  old  names  '  Mysian '  or  '  Phrygian '  seem  to  have  remained 
in  use  for  the  nearest  large  groups  of  folk,  who  were  moreover  closely  akin 
to  the  old  Trojans.  The  Troad  itself,  with  its  population  always  mongrel, 
and  its  varying  degrees  of  Hellenization,  easily  acquired  the  descriptive  title 
of  Ato\i'<? — 'patchwork-land.'  It  was  only  seawards,  therefore,  beyond  the 
Hellespont,  that  any  real  difficulty  would  arise.  Now  exactly  in  this 
direction  the  contrast  between  Greek  settler  and  barbarous  native  was  being 
enhanced,  during  this  very  period,  by  that  Thracian  thrust  which  we  have 
already  seen  to  correspond  dynamically  with  the  Dorian  thrust  in  the  North- 
West  Aegean  ;  and  with  so  marked  a  geographical  feature  as  the  Hellespont 
between  Hellenic  Asia  and  non-Hellenic  Europe,  it  would  be  only  natural  to 
expect  that  the  correlative  to  '  Hellene  ' — for  this  corner  of  the  Hellenic  world 
at  all  events — would  be  the  name  of  the  dominant  or  characteristic  native 
tribe.  Now  we  have  already  seen  that  in  the  Catalogue  the  dominant  folk 
in  this  area  between  Hebrus  and  Hellespont  are  not  the  Thracians  strictly 
so-called  but  the  Pelasgi;  and  it  was  probably  in  some  such  circumstances 
as  these  that  the  antithesis  of  "EWrjv  and  HeXaayos  first  took  rise.20     From 

Iliad  2.  530.  ture  that  the  antithesis  arose  in  Thessaly,  and 

19  The  case  of  Achilleion  and  Sigeion  are  was  transferred  during  the  Aeolic  migration  to 
typical.  The  Athenians,  in  the  time  of  Peri-  Aeolis  may  reasonably  be  asked  first  to  catch 
ander,  could  claim  ovSev  naWov  AloKevoi  psTshv  their  Thessalian  Pelasgians,  and  then  to  point 
rrjs  'iAiaSos  x^P^s  fi  ov  Ka\  a  (pirn  Kal  tomti  to  the  circumstances  (if  any)  other  than  the 
&\\otai,  '6  <y  o  i  'E  A  A  7)  c  a>  v  cruvtTTp^avTo  existence  of  our  trans-Hellespontine  Pelasgians, 
Mev4\ecf>  ras  'EAeVrjs  apirayds.     Hdt.  v.  94.  which  made  the  transference  itself  appropriate 

20  All  who  like  Busoll   <:.0.  i.';  157  conjee- 


meaning  '  pre- Achaean '  in  the  mother  country  the  name  of  the  Pelasgi 
comes  now  to  mean  '  pie-Hellenic  '  in  tins  colonial  region  :  but  acquires  also 
now  the  further  connotation  of  '  barbarous '  which  we  can  trace  indeed  to 
the  case  of  Zeus  of  Dodona,  but  which  does  not  otherwise  meet  us  till  we 
come  to  Hellenic  writers. 

We  have  thus,  within  Homeric  time,  a  situation  in  which  almost 
inevitably  the  names  "RWyv  and  Ue\a<ry6<;  came,  in  merely  descriptive 
fashion,  to  stand  for  'civilized  '  and  'uncivilized'  respectively:  so  that  it  was 
possible  for  a  Homeric  poet  to  describe  either  rude  non-Achaean  fortifications, 
or  uncouth  ritual  survivals,  as  '  Pelasgian,'  without  intending  to  convey  any 
suggestion  as  to  the  ethnological  status  of  their  originators. 

That  this  interpretation  of  the  evidence  is  correct  is  suggested  also  by 
comparison  with  what  happened  elsewhere.  In  the  South-East  Aegean  we 
hear  little  of  TleXa cryot ;  and  in  proportion  as  they  recede  from  view,  two 
other  names  Kape?  and  Ae'X,e7e<?  become  prominent  as  generic  names  for  non- 
Hellenes.  Here,  fortunately,  in  the  case  of  the  Carians,  the  Homeric 
evidence  is  sufficient  to  show  that  in  Homeric  times  these  folks  Avere  already 
dominant  in  Caria,  and  in  possession  of  coast  towns;  that  their  speech  was 
unintelligible  to  Achaeans ;  and  that  they  were  philo-Trojan.  To  this,  the 
subsequent  evidence  adds  only  this :  first  that  the  domination  of  actual 
Carians  over  Caria  persisted  until  the  fourth  century  and  later;  but, 
secondly,  that  in  the  interval  between  Homer  and  Herodotus,  there  sprang  up 
in  the  South  Aegean  a  great  '  Carian  Theory  ' — in  all  respects  analogous  to 
the  'Pelasgian  Theory'  of  the  North  Aegean— in  which  many  '  Carian '- 
looking  survivals  and  antiquities,  in  Crete,  in  the  islands,  and  even  so  far 
n field  as  Attica  and  the  Megarid,  were  construed  in  the  light  of  the  piratical 
performances  of  the  real  Carians  of  the  vii-vi  centuries  as  evidence  of  a 
wide-spread  'Carian'  barbarism  in  pre-Hellenic  times  :  until,  by  a  strange 
inversion  of  history,  it  is  to  a  direct  ancestor  of  the  Achaean  Idomeneus 
that  the  first  'pan-Hellenic'  crusade  was  attributed  by  the  writers  of  the 
fifth  century.'21 

An  examination  of  the  ancient  references  to  the  Leleges  leads  to  a 
similar  result.  An  actual  people,  in  Homer,  on  the  Asiatic  coast  land,  they 
fade,  in  Hellenic  times,  first  into  the  fabled  builders  of  archaic  racfioi  and 
TroXtafxara,  then  into  an  ethnologists'  label  tor  pie-historic  traits  in  Messeiiia 
and  other  parts  of  European  Greece. -la 

§   5. — Lemnos,  Imbros,  and  tin    Hellespontine  Area   in  Homer. 

Before  leaving  the  Homeric  data,  mention  should  be  made  of  two  groups 
of  passages,  which,  though  in  a  sense  negative  evidence,  arc  ^>i'  some  imp 
ance  when  compared  with  the  statements  of  fifth  century  win     - 

One  group  concerns  the  population  of  Lemnos  and  Imbros  in  the 
Homeric  Age.     Both  islands  are  mentioned  as  geographical   stepping-stones 

-1  i.  171.     Time.  i.  4.  -         i  611.  Cf.  Pal   a  and  Myres,  J.ff.S.  xvi,  1    1   ' 


J.  L.  MYRES 

between  Europe  and  Asia,'22  and  are  quite  well  known  to  the  poet;  but  so 
far  from  being  occupied  by  Pelasgians  from  the  adjacent  mainland,  or  by  any 
allies  of  Priam  at  all,  they  are  apparently  on  the  Achaean  side.  Lemnos  in 
particular  is  still  the  'city  of  Thoas,' 23  and  ruled  by  Euneus,  son  of  Jason 
and  Hyp?ipyle,24  who  had  apparently  allowed  the  Achaeans  to  put  in  to 
Lemnos  on  their  way  to  Troy,'25  and  traded  on  provisions  at  their  camp.26 
He  also  seems  to  have  been  of  use  to  them  by  providing  a  market  for  their 
prisoners  of  war,  for  he  bought  Lycaon  son  of  Priam  from  Patroclus  with  a 
Sidonian  cup  which  had  belonged  to  Thoas.27  Eetion  of  Imbros  carried  on 
a  similar  slave  trade  with  Euneus,  and  in  due  course  bought  Lycaon;28  but, 
being  a  gelvos  of  the  House  of  Priam,  let  his  purchase  escape  and  go  home  : 
or  perhaps  this  indirect  ransom  of  a  princely  prisoner  was  a  '  put-up  affair ' 
throughout.  In  any  case  there  is  no  trace  of  a  Pelasgian  in  either  island ; 
and  not  only  is  the  Minyan  occupation  still  effective,  but  a  native  population 
is  described,  which  is  twice  expressly  described  as  SiWte?.29  In  both  passages 
they  are  mentioned  in  connsxion  with  Hephaestus  ;  but  they  are  not  stated 
to  stand  in  any  special  relation  to  him,30  and  they  cannot  be  merely  mythical, 
for  they  are  dypLocpwvoij31  and  this  implies  personal  experience  of  them  on 
the  part  not  merely  of  the  Achaeans  but  of  the  poet  or  his  audience.  The 
2tWte<?  do  not  appear  at  all  in  historic  times  in  Lemnos;  but  we  shall 
see  that  a  tribe  of  similar  name  existed  on  the  neighbouring  mainland  to  the 
north  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  century  (p.  205). 

The  other  group  of  passages  concerns  the  Hellespont,  and  implies  at 
the  same  time  a  frontier  and  a  tendency  to  migrate  beyond  it ;  and  we  shall 
be  dealing  so  much  with  theories  of  migration  in  the  sequel,  that  a  Homeric 
hint  of  migration  in  the  Hellespontine  area  must  not  be  overlooked.  The 
definition  of  the  Thracians  in  the  catalogue  as 

ocrcrof?  'EWrierTrwro?  dydppoos  t'l'TO?  eepyei3'" 

clearly  suggests  that,  though  the  Thracians  of  Europe  were  under  the  over- 
lordship  of  Priam,  there  existed  other  Thracians  whom  the  Hellespont  had 
had  not  succeeded  in  confininor.  and  who  led  a  more  or  less  nomadic  life  on 
its  further  or  Asiatic  bank,  like  the  Galatae  of  eventual  Galatia.  That  a 
Thracian  invasion  of  North-western  Asia  had  already  begun  in  Homeric 
times  is  probable,  if  only  for  this  reason,  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  say 
wl.ere  (in  the  generic  sense)  Thracian  ended  and  Hirygian  began;  and  it 
was  only  in  Priam's  youth,  we  must  remember,  that  the  Phrygians  themselves 
hal   pushed   up  the   valley   of   the   Sangarius  and   fought  their  great  battle 

Lemnos,    II.   14.   230,    281  ;    Imbros,   14. 


//.  14.  230. 

'    //.  7.  467  :  21.  40    12. 

II.  i.  230 

'-"'•  //.  7.  467. 

-'    II.  2:;.  745   7. 

-'   II.  21.   i-Z    1. 

S!)  II.  1.  554,  Od.  8.  294. 

:t"  In  the  Iliad  they  merely  pick  him  up 
when  he  was  thrown  out  of  Heaven  :  in  the 
Odyssey  too  (in  the  mouth  of  his  flighty  lady) 
they  are  'those  horrid  peop'e'  whom  he  will 
iinil  when  In-  t^oes  to  Lemnos. 

:;1    Od.  8.  294. 

:i-  //.  2.  845. 


with  the  Amazon-folk.33  Now  if,  and  when,  any  such  pressure  on  the  European 
shores  of  the  Hellespont  was  in  progress,  the  immediate  and  inevitable  result 
would  be  to  squeeze  out  the  Pelasgians  of  the  Catalogue  from  Europe  into 
Asia34 :  and  exactly  this  result  we  shall  meet  before  long. 

|  G. — Hesiod  and  the  Later  Epic. 

For  the  long  period  which  intervenes  between  Homer  and  -Herodotus 
our  sources  are  unfortunately  very  few  and  very  fragmentary.  They  are 
sufficient,  however,  to  show  that  the  double  usage  of  the  Pelasgian  name, 
which  we  have  observed  already  in  Homer,  was  provoking  commentary  and 
speculation ;  and  they  give  some  idea  of  the  directions  in  which  theorists 
were  working.  The  period  divides  rather  sharply  into  two  phases  ;  an  earlier, 
in  which  our  authorities  are  few  and  mainly  epic,  and  where  the  allusions 
are  incidental  and  explanatory;  and  a  later,  in  which  we  are  confronted 
with  a  critical  and  constructive  movement,  of  rapidly  increasing  originality, 
and  of  a  growing  complexity  and  multiplicity  both  of  local  traditions  and 
of  schools  of  enquiry.  It  will  be  convenient  still,  as  in  the  case  of  Homer,  to 
keep  separate  so  far  as  possible  the  denotative  substantival,  and  the  conuotative 
adjectival  passages. 

A.— Actual  Pelasgians. — Hesiod  (Strabo  327  =  fr.  225  Kinkel)  is  quoted 
as  saying  of  somebody, 

A(o$(t)i>>]v  (f>r)yov  re,  Tiekaaywv  eBpavov,  yev 

which  suggests  that  he  interpreted  the  Homeric  phrase  Zev,  ava,  AcoScorale, 
IleXaa-yiKe  as  if  it  referred  to  an  actual  settlement  of  Pelasgians  at  Dodona.34* 
Now  as  Homer  populates  Dodona  not  with  Pelasgians  but  with  Perrhaebi 
and  Euienes,  Hesiod's  phrase  must  imply  either  dependence  on  Homeric 
tradition  for  a  description  of  Dodona  as  it  might  have  been  in  pre-Achaean 
time — in  which  case  the  passage  becomes  evidence  not  of  ethnology  but  of 
current  theory —  ;  or,  if  it  is  really  descriptive  of  Dodona  as  it  was  in  Hesiod's 
time  (not  much  before  700  B.C.),  it  gives  us  this  important  addition  to  our 
knowledge,  that,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  case  of  Lemnos,  the  arrival  of  Hesiod's 
Pelasgians  at  Dodona  must  be  assigned  to  post-Homeric  time.  In  either  case 
Hesiod's  phrase  is  no  proof  that  the  Pelasgians  were  autochthonous 
Dodona  or  even  existed  there  in  Homer's  tin 

•.   :•    184— IS  3'"'  1"  later  times  it  certainly  was  not  always 

•  For  a    very    remarkable   echo   in    a    late  interpreted   so.     Ephorus  for  example,  who  as 

writer  of  this  Homeric  conception  ofa  'Thrako-  we  shall  see  was  mainly  responsible  fort] 

Phrygian  thrust '  see  the  passage  of  Apollonius  habilitation  of  Hesiodic  views    iboul  thi   Pelas- 

of  Rhodes  in  tl  p.  222  below.  gians,  certainly  regarded  Dodona  .1-  one  of  the 

Een  he  is  more  than  followed  by  Holm,  settlements    of  his    Pelasgiau   emigrants  from 

■  ;,      .   xh.  i.  69.     'Hesiod  hat  dann  ausdriick-  Arcadia.     [Ephoros  ap.   Strabo  337  tan  5',  5$ 

lichgesagt,  class  Dodona  der  Sitz  der  Pelasgei  <pri<iiv "Z<popos,  nc\cury&v  TSpvpad  &w$£vri  •  of 

war.1     Surely  the  must  that  maj  lis  5e    Tlekaayol    tuv   *epl    r'i,v    'E\.\<i5o     5wa- 

th?t  Dodona  was  a  settlement  of  Pelasgians.  arev6vroiv  apxawTarot  \4-)ovrai.) 

186  J.   L.   MYRES 

B.  Theoretical  Pelasgians. — Asius,  who  flourished  about  700  B.C.,  is  quoted 
by  Pausanias  (8.  1.  4)  as  follows : — 

dvTtOeov  he  TleXacrybv  ev   v^rtKo/JbOLcnv  opecrcrt 
Tata  /jbiXaiv7  dvehwKev,  Xva  OvrfrSiv  yevos   eh]. 

Here  for  the  first  time  a  man  '  Pelasgus '  appears  as  an  individual 
eponymos  ;  and  also  not  merely  as  'prehistoric,'  but  as  'primitive,' — the  first  of 
mankind.  Pausanias  has  just  stated  that  '  the  Arcadians  say  that  Pelasgus 
was  the  first  man  who  lived  in  this  land;'  but  an  Arcadian  origin  is 
not  claimed  for  Pelasgus  in  the  passage  of  Asius,  and  there  is  no  more  reason 
for  holding  that  Asius  believed  Pelasgus  to  have  been  an  Arcadian  than 
for  holding  that  he  made  him  a  Dodonaean  or  a  Thessalian. 

Hesiod,  similarly,  knew  of  an  individual  Pelasgus,  who  was  '  auto- 
chthonous'  ('Her  10809  he  rhv  HeXaayov  avrb^Qovd  cprjaiv  eluai).m  In  this  he 
agreed  with  Asius;  but  he  went  further  when  he  wrote  vleU  e^eyevovro 
Av/cdoi>o<;  dvriOeoLo,  ov  irate  riKje  UeXaayoq37 :  for  Lycaon  is  the  great 
culture  hero  of  Western  Arcadia,  and  the  progenitor  of  a  family  which 
came  eventually  to  include  some  fifty  eponymi  of  various  places  and 
peoples  in  Greece. 

The  contrast  presented  by  these  passages  from  the  later  epic  with  the 
Homeric  evidence  is  apparent  at  once.  In  place  either  of  real  people 
familiarly  known,  or  vague  allusions  to  a  mysterious  pa*t  we  have  a  clear- 
cut  theory  which  represented  Pelasgus  as  the  Primeval  Man,  and  consequently 
his  descendants,  the  Pelasgians,  as  representatives  of  an  aboriginal  race  and 
a  primitive  phase  of  culture  ;  and  we  have  also  a  further  stage  of  theory 
in  the  localization  of  Pelasgus  (and  consequently  of  Pelasgians)  in  Arcadia, 
which  is  quite  foreign  to  Homer,  and  marks  the  first  step  in  a  new  path 
of  speculation  which  we  have  next  to  follow  out  among  the  writers  of  the 
late  sixth  century  and  of  the  fifth. 

|  7. —  The   Lorjographcrs  of  the  Sixth   and  Early  Fifth   Century. 

Two  distinct  movements  may  be  recognized  among  the  Logographers. 
On  the  one  hand  the  method  of  personification  employed  by  Hesiod  and 
Asius  is  applied  to  other  parts  of  Greece,  in  which  traces  of  Pelasgians 
were  admitted.  Hecataeus  for  example 3S  makes  Pelasgus  a  king  in 
Thessaly:  for  Thessaly,  he  says,  was  called  Pelasgia  enrb  HeXao-yov  tov 
[SaaiXeos.  On  the  other  hand,  more  than  one  writer,  accepting  the  Hesiodic 
theory  that  Pelasgus  was  the  First  Man,  were  at  pains  to  harmonize  this 
theory  with  the  claims  of  other  peoples  in  Greece  to  be  regarded  as  aboriginal. 

Acusilaus,  for  instance,  writing  at  about  the  same  time  as  Hecataeus, 
seems  to  have  interpolated  a  personal  Pelasgus  into  the  primeval  genealogy 
of  Argos.     In   this  genealogy,  Niobe,  daughter  of  Phoroneus,  becomes  the 

88  Apoll.  ii.  ';.  1,  7  =  Hesiod  fr.  68  Kiukel.  38  SchoJ.  Apoll.  Rhod.  4.  266. 

37  Str.  221  =  fr.  Kiukel. 


earliest  mortal  consort  of  Zeus  and  gives  birth  to  Argos.  Acusilaus,  himself 
an  Argive,  annotates  this  pedigree  like  that  of  the  proverbial  Welshman 
— 'about  this  time  Adam  was  born' — and  inserts  Polasgus  as  a  cadet 
brother  of  Argos.  The  rest  of  the  genealogy  is  the  expanded  version 
already  mentioned  of  the  Hesiodic  theory:  Pelasgus  becomes  the  father 
of  Lycaon,  09  fiacnXevaas  ' Apicdhwv  e/c  ttoX\6ji>  yvvaiKtav  irevrrjKovTa 
iralhas  iyevvr/ae,  including  the  eponymi  of  many  Arcadian  towns,  and  even 
of  remoter  Greek  and  non-Greek  peoples:  Thesprotus,  Peucetius,  Caucon, 
Macedonus,  Phthius,  Lyeius,  and  the  like.  The  list  ends  with  Svktivos 
or  Nuktv/ao?,  a  'twilight'  personage  associated  with  a  Ddmmerung  in  the 
shape  of  Deucalion's  Flood.  Meanwhile  Lycaon  has  also  a  daughter  Callisto, 
who  becomes  by  Zeus  the  mother  of  Areas.  Areas,  in  due  course,  survives 
the  Deluge,  and  becomes  the  founder  of  historic  Arcadia.  How  much 
of  all  this  was  the  real  sequel  to  Hesiod's  phrase  vleis  iijeyevovro  Avkuovos 
avTiOeoto,  or  how  much  is  later  superstructure,  is  an  open  question.39 
All  that  is  of  importance  here  is  the  fact,  recorded  by  Apollodorus,40  that  it 
was  Acusilaus  who  engrafted  Pelasgus  into  the  Argive  pedigree, — '  Phoroneus, 
— Niobe — Argos,' — and  that  this  interpolation  took  place  in  defiance  of  the 
authority  of  Hesiod,  who  had  made  Pelasgus  an  avTo^Bwy. 

That  the  expanded  genealogy  of  Lycaon  was  a  systematic  attempt  to 
ascribe  'Pelasgian'  ancestry  to  certain  sets  of  Greeks,  especially  in  the 
North-West,  is  clear  from  the  version  ascribed  to  Pherecydes  by  Dionysius 
01  Hahcarnassus.41  UeXacryov  kcli  A^/m^e/p?;?  ytverai  Av/cdtov  ....  ovtos 
yafiel  KvXX/]vr]v  pyj'iBa  vufj,cp7]v,  acp  f)<;  to  opo$  1)  KvWijvi]  KaXelrai — this 
domiciles  Lycaon,  as  before,  in  Arcadia — eireiTu  rovq  ire  tovtcov  yevvridevras 
oie^iwv,  tcai  riva<;  TOTrovq  e/cacrroc  tovtcov  (pKifcrav,  OlvcoTpov  kcl\  HevxeTiov 
p-ifivyjo-fceTai  XeyMv  mSe  : — ktX.  Here  we  have  a  clear  formulation  of  the 
theory  of  a  diaspora  of  Pelasgian  peoples  from  Arcadia  north-westward. 
to  which  system  and  currency  were  given  later  on  by  Ephorus.  And  we  can 
hardly  doubt  that  the  goal  of  this  north-westward  movement  was  the 
UeXaaycov  ehpavov  at  Dodona,  which  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that 
Hesiod  had  invented  out  of  the  Homeric  epithet  of  Dodonaean  Zeus. 

Hellanicus,  a  generation  later,  writing  iv  'ApyoXi/cais  like  the  Argive 
Acusilaus,  makes  another  and  quite  different  attempt  to  associate  the 
lineage   of   Pelasgus   with    a    genealogy  which    is    essentially   Argive.     This 

3LI  This  genealogy  conies  to  us  as  the  work  of  Latesl  oi  them.     Bat  Ephorus  certainly  1  • 

Acusilaus  in  Apollodorus  ii.  1.  1,  cf.  iii.  8.  i..  great  mass  of   genealogical  material  of  earlier 

confirmed  by  Dionysius  ol   Halicarnassus  i.  17.  than  fourth  century  dace:  genealogical  stud,  of 

'■I  ami  Tzetzes,  Lye.  481.  tins  elaborate  kind  is  characteristic  of  tin-  later 

40  iii.  8.  1.  sixth    and    early   fifth   century  :  and    in     the 

41  Fragt.  85  =  Dionys.  Hal.  i.  13.  It  is  a  particular  case  of  Lycaon  we  have  evidence  that 
misfortune  that  it  is  not  possible  to  disentangle  a  metrical  gem  1  9  jted  which  was  attri- 
with  certainty  tin'  contributions  of  the  three  buted   to    Hesiod.     So,    rather  thai 

writers  named  Pherecydes.     Everything  that  is  own  view  of  the  matter  t"  an  extreme,  I  have 

attributed  to  them  on  this  topic  i-  so  situ  rated  chosen  t"  discuss  tin'  statement! 

with  the  ideas  of  Ephorus    sc<  ss  1  i  16  below)  as  if  they  belonged  to  the  \oyoypi<pos  of  that 

that  my  own  inclination  is  to  assign  all  to  th(  nan.        -  220  below. 

188  J.  L.   MYRES 

theory  comes  to  us  in  the  following  form.1"2  Triopas,  who  stands  in  the  same 
eponymous  relation  to  the  Dorian  hexapolis  on  the  Carian  coast,  as  the 
hero  Argos  does  to  its  Argive  metropolis,  had  three  sons,  Iasus,  Pelasgus,  and 
Agenor.  On  the  death  of  Triopas,  these  '  divided  his  kingdom.'  Pelasgus 
took  the  eastern  half,  ra  irphs  ^paalvov  irora^ov,  and  founded  Larisa  (the 
acropolis  of  Argos  City),  calling  it  after  the  name  of  his  own  daughter 
(fr.  29).  Iasus  took  the  western  half,  ra  777305  On  the  death  of 
Pelasgus  and  Iasus,  Agenor  brought  cavalry  and  conquered  the  whole 
country.  This  is  all  to  explain  three  Homeric  epithets  of  Argos :  "laaov, 
iTnToftoTov,  HeXaayi/cov  ;  and  the  theory  is  ascribed  to  Hellanicus  by  name. 
It  presupposes  that  the  name  "Apyos  was  applicable  to  the  whole  of  the 
kingdom  of  Triopas,  which  included  all  Peloponnese ;  and  so  gives  us 
fifth-century  authority  for  the  belief  underlying  the  statement  of  Apollodorus 43 
that  the  hero  Argos  on  succeeding  Phoroneus  as  king  called  all  Peloponnese 
after  his  own  name.  Whether  Apollodorus'  further  contribution,  when  he 
puts  the  hero  Argos  in  place  of  Triopas,  is  of  earlier  date,  or  is  a  subsequent 
attempt  to  square  the  genealogy  given  by  Hellanicus  with  that  given  by 
Acusilaus,  is  another  question ;  and  the  same  observation  applies  to  another 
variant  given  by  Eustathius,44  which  puts  Phoroneus  in  place  of  Triopas  : 
an  even  nearer  approximation  to  the  theory  of  Acusilaus. 

An  obvious  motive  for  these  various  attempts  to  interpolate  Pelasgus  in 
genealogies  relating  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  has  doubtless  suggested 
itself  to  the  reader  by  this  time.  There  can  in  fact  be  little  doubt  that 
Hellanicus,  or  Acusilaus,  or  both,  were  the  victims,  if  not  the  perpetrators,  of 
a  simple  literary  blunder.  Hellanicus,  it  is  true,  is  the  first  known  author 
who  named  TieXaayiooris  as  one  of  the  Thessalian  tetrarchies,45  and  he  was  as 
fully  convinced  as  anyone  of  the  existence  of  a  Pelasgian  settlement  in 
Thessaly  down  to  the  time  of  the  '  Coming  of  the  Hellenes ; '  so  he  cannot  be 
acquitted  of  having  known  that  the  Homeric  HeXaayiicov  "Apyos  properly 
referred  to  some  part  of  Thessaly.  Yet  he  and  his  immediate  predecessors 
are  under  grave  suspicion  of  having  taken  that  phrase  also  as  referring  not  to 
the  Thessalian  but  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  ;  of  having  confused  both 
with  that  Thessalian  Larisa  which  is  neither  part  of  Homer's  UeXaaycKov 
"Apyos  nor  the  home  of  Homer's  actual  YleXaayol;  and  further  of  having 
combined  this  non-existent  'Pelasgian  Argos'  in  Peloponnese  with  the 
Pelasgian  Arcadia,'  which  we  have  seen  to  be  Hesiodic  doctrine,  and  of  which 
Acusilaus46  and  Hellanicus47  were  both  aware. 

The  actual  reduplication  of  the  place-name  Larisa,  in  Thessaly,  in 
Argolis,  and  in  the  country  of  Homer's  actual  Pelasgians48  inevitably  in- 
creased  the  confusion, and  led  to  a  variety  of  fresh  combinations.  Hellanicus49 

Schol.    11.  3.75  =  fr.  37.       In    spite   of  his  «  ii.  1.  2.  2. 

later  date,    I  class   Hellanicus  with   the    other  44  Schol.  11.  3.  75. 

genealogists,  ami  separate  him  from  Herodotus  4,i  Harpocr.  s.v.  rerpapx^ai. 

ami  Thuuydides,  on  the  ground  that  all  that  4G  Apollodorus  ii.  1.  1. 

we  know  of  his  work  marks  him  as  a  belated  '■'  Stc}ih.  Byz.  s.v.  'Apnas. 

coiitiuuatoj  of  the  logographic  school  of  history-  43  11.  2.  843. 

wiitiny.  ia  Phoronis  fr.  1. 


makes  Pelasgus  marry  Menippe,a  daughter  of  the  Peneius,50  and  so  localizeshim 
in  Thessaly,  and  makes  him  ancestor  of  a  line  of  Thessalian  kings  ;  Phrastor, 
Amyntor,  Teutamidas.  Of  these  the  last  named  is  of  course  suggested  by  the 
ancestor  of  the  leaders  of  that  contingent  of  Pelasgians  in  Homer/'1  who,  as  we 
have  seen,  are  really  Hellespontine,  and  have  nothing  to  do  either  with 
Thessaly  or  Argolis.  Hellanicus  again,52  and  also  Pherecydes,"'3  brought 
Acrisius  the  Argive  on  a  visit  to  the  Pelasgians  of  Thessaly,  and  so  explained 
the  existence  in  Thessaly  of  the  Argive  place-name  Larisa ;  and,  later, 
Staphylus  of  Naucratis  brought  Pelasgus  himself  from  Argos  to  Thessaly  to 
found  this  Thessalian  Larisa/"'4  There  was  however  apparently  yet  another 
tradition  in  the  field — perhaps  the  legend  utilized  by  Staphylus — which  put 
the  foundation  of  the  Thessalian  Larisa  earlier  than  the  generation  of 
Acrisius;  so  yet  another  step  was  taken  by  the  defenders  of  the  Acrisius 
theory,  by  duplicating  their  protege?* 

Side  by  side  with  all  this  speculation,  one  passage  from  Hecataeus56 
reveals  to  us  an  actual  population  of  the  Pelasgian  name,  resident  now  in 
Lemnos,  but  believed  to  have  once  lived  in  Attica.  The  passage  however  is 
only  preserved  to  us  in  abstract ;  and  we  shall  be  at  all  events  on  the  safe 
side  if  we  postpone  consideration  of  it  till  we  come  to  discuss  the  views  of 
Herodotus,  to  whom  we  owe  its  preservation. 

One  set  of  fragments  of  Hellanicus  57  deals  likewise  with  Lemnos,  or 
rather,  with  the  ILvTies,  its  Homeric  population.  From  merely  tending  the 
outcast  Hephaestus — and  the  merest  '  Pelasgian'  could  hardly  do  less  under 
the  circumstances — they  have  become  his  Lemnian  craftsmen,  'the  first  arti- 
ficers of  metals,'  inventors  of  armour  and  implements  of  destruction  ;  and  that 
is  why  they  are  Sccries,  from  o-{vea0ac.-'s  They  are  also,  by  this  time, 
immigrants  from  Thrace;  for  when  certain  Trojans, who  play  a  part  in  the 
foundation-legend  of  Chios,  landed  in  Lemnos,  rjaav  .  .  .  avrodi  KaroiKovvTes 
©pa/re?  rives,  ov  ttoXXoI  avBpwrror  iyeyoveicrav  Se  ^ui^e/vA^e?-  tovtovs 
eicdXovv  ol  TrepioiKoi  'Ei'vTias.  Their  '  Hellenic  admixture'  we  must  suppose 
to  have  been  due  to  contact  with  the  Minyans,  and  perhaps  also  with 
.Agamemnon's  Achaeans  during  the  war.  For  the  further  hisiory  of  the 
StVTte9  see  p.  205  below. 

50  Compare      the      alliance      arranged     by  'r.  29. 

pherecydes  between  Pelasgus  anil  Kyllene  i'tj<5o  ;'3  Fr.  26.,  cf.  Schol.  Ap,   Rh.  i.  40,     Tzetz. 

vvfi<\>t)v  (above  p.   187);   with  the   result   that  Lye.  838,  Stepb.  Byz.  s.v.  Adpicra. 

Pelasgus  is  localized  in  Arcadia,  fl4  Schol.  Ap.  Rh.  1. 

61  II.   2.    843;  Phoronis  fr.   26  =  Schol.    Ap.  55  Apoll.  ii.  4.  i. 

Rh.  4.  1090.      It  is  a  further  question  whether  vi.  137. 

in  the  Homeric  phrase  vlt  Svw  Aydoto  U(\a<ryov  "   Fr.  1  12 

Tet>Tayu/8ao  tin-  word  neXacryov  means  [  son  58  Philochorus  (fr.  6  =  Schol.  77.   1.  ."94)  after 

Pelasgus1  or  simply  'the  Pelasgian  :'  and  again  hi-  manner  has  pounced  upon  this  hit  of  philo- 

whether  Tevra/i(Sao  means 'son of  Teutamidas,'  logy   and   adopted    it,    hut   explains    it    quite 

as    Hellanicus    thought,    or    rather    'son    .if  differently. 

190  J.   L-  MYRES 

§  8— The  Tragedians. 

How  popular  in  the  fifth  century  was  this  blunder  about  the  HeXao-yi/cov 
"Apyos-  is  well  seen  from  the  tragedians.  Aeschylus  for  "example  in  the 
Supplices  (11.  1  ff.)  makes  the  king  of  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  call  himself 
the  son  of  Palaichthon  the  earthborn  :  he  is  the  eponymos  of  the  Pelasgi, 
and  the  lord  of  a  realm  which  includes  everything  west  of  the  Strymon, 
Paeonia,  which  he  seems  to  put  also  west  of  the  Strymon,59  Perrhaebia, 
Pindus  and  beyond,  and  the  hills  of  Dodona.  It  extends,  in  fact,  as  far  as 
the  sea,  presumably  the  Adriatic.  It  also  includes  all  south  of  this  Strymon- 
Adriatic  line  as  far  as,  and  including,  Peloponnese.  Here  the  genealogical 
diagram  Tij — Ha\.ai,x0aiv — HeXaayos  is  clearly  an  expansion  of  the  Hesiodic 
theory  of  a  UeXaayos  who  is  himself  avroxOov.  The  extent  of  the  Pelasgian 
kino-dom  is  no  less  clearly  determined,  partly  by  the  desire  to  include  a 
'  Pelasgian  '  Dodona  (which  had  by  this  time  become  matter  of  common 
knowledge),  and  the  '  Pelasgic  Argos'  of  Thessaly;  partly  by  an  attempt 
to  claim  for  the  Pelasgian  Argos  of  Peloponnese  the  hegemony  over  all 
those  parts  of  Greece  (including  Macedonia)  which  had  come  in  historic  times 
under  the  rule  of  soi-disant  '  Heracleids  from  Argos.'  It  is  possible  also 
that  the  allusion  to  the  Strymon  may  cover  the  poet's  acquaintance  with 
the  fact,  known  to  Herodotus (i0  that  '  actual '  Pelasgians  remained  extant  in 
the  fifth  century  within  the  basin  of  that  river. 

In  Prometheus,  similarly,  UeXaayca  is  used  in  a  context  which  shows 
that  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  of  Aegisthus  and  Danaus  is  meant : — 

879  f.      UeXaayta  ere  Several,  $i]\vktov(o 

"Apet  hafxevrwv  vvtcTi(f)povp)]T(p  dpdaef 

and  here  too  Aeschylus  is  further  supported,  as  we  shall  see,  by  the 
Herodotean  accounts  of  Argolis  as  having  been  Pelasgic  at  the  time  of 
the  coming  of  the  Danaids.60a 

Sophocles  m  the  same  way  transfers  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  not 
merely  the  associations  which  belong  to  the  UeXacrytKov  "Apyo<?  of  Thessaly, 
but  also  all  that  other  body  of  fifth-century  doctrine  which  equated  the  '  actual 
Pelasgians '  of  Thessaly,  the  Thrace  ward  parts,  and  Lemnos,  with  the  no  less 
mysterious  Tyrseni. 

Fi\  25G.     "\vaye  yevvdrop,  wal  Kpt]vcov 

Trarpos  'Qiceavov,  fxeya  irpecrfievcov 

"Apyovs  re  yvais/'Hpas  re  7rdyoc<; 

Kal  Tvpatjvolcri  Tie\aayoi<;.mh 

]i  an  mbe)    here     L)  that  Homer's  Paeonia  is  definitely  included  in  'Thrace,'  from  which 

mil-                             the  river  Axius  ;    (2)  that  '  Paeonia  '  proper  is  distinct  both  in  Homer,  in 

igh    in    the    sixth    century     Paeonia    had  Herodotus,  and  even  later. 

.   good  way  easl  ol  the  Strymon,  yet  60  Hdt.  2.  171  ;  7.  94,  see  §10  below. 

;ill  th                               D  had  been  made  arao-Toros  '"l   Hdt.  7.  94  :   2.  171. 

in  the  time  of  Darius.  Hdt.  5.  15.     Nordoesit  6ub  Dion  H.  1.  25.     For  the  Tyrseni  see  §  17 

ever    to    have     recovered    its    Paeonian  below. 
icter ;  in  th<  fifth  and  fourth  centuries  it 


Euripides  contributes  little.  His  regular  use  of  the  epithet  '  Pelasgiau  ' 
is  to  denote  the  Peloponnesian  Argos  and  its  population,  both  Achaean,  as  in 
the  Orestes,  and  Iphigenia  in  Aulis,000  and  pre-Achaean3  as  in  the  Phoenissae, 
and  the  Supplices.606  In  Orestes  1247,  UeXaayiKor  "Apyo?  clearly  means 
Achaean  Mycenae.  Only  in  one  passage  does  he  distinguish  between  the 
previous  IleXacryiMTat  and  the  culture  hero  Danaus,  whose  name  they  are 
caused  to  assume.01 

§  0. — Herodotus:  (a)  Iris  independence  of  the  Hesiodic  School. 

With  Herodotus  we  are  once  more  in  broad  daylight.  His  allusions  to 
the  Pelasgians  are  numerous,  and  his  usage  of  the  name,  though  it  varies, 
is  on  the  whole  intelligible.  His  work  also  shows  sufficiently  clear  points  of 
contact  both  with  recent  observation  and  with  contemporary  theory  to 
permit  it  to  be  used  as  a  commentary  on  the  more  fragmentary  utterances  of 
other  fifth-century  writers.  It  has  on  the  other  hand  the  disadvantage 
that,  thanks  to  the  eclipse  which  befel  the  History  almost  as  soon  as 
it  was  published,  it  had  surprisingly  little  influence  on  the  course  of 
later  speculation.     But  herein  there  was  gain,  as  well  as  loss,  as  we  shall  see. 

Herodotus  has,  in  the  first  place,  no  mention  of  an  individual  eponymous 
UeXaayos ;  and  no  direct  contact  with  the  Hesiodic  theory  at  all,  except  the 
bare  allusion  to  the  Arcadians  as  being  in  the  theoretical  sense  Pelasgians,';- 
and  as  being  autochthonous  in  Peloponnese  like  the  Cynurians.63  But  the 
Arcadians  are  in  no  way  specially  marked  out  as  aboriginal  or  Pelasgic  ; 
and  their  Cynurian  colleagues  are  never  called  by  him  Pelasgian. 

This  leads  us  to  the  positive  side  of  Herodotus'  work  ;  and  here  once 
more  we  inust  distinguish  between  a  writer's  accounts  of  Pelasgians  actually 
surviving  in  his  own  day,  or  extinguished  within  living  memory,  and  his 
statements  of  a  '  Pelasgian  Theory  '  of  early  Greece. 

§  10. — H.  /<  dolus  :  (b)  actual  P<  I"*f/ictns  as  survivals,  cl  icfly  in  tht  North  A<  j<  an. 

Actual  Pelasgians,  either  surviving  or  recently  extinct,  are  known 
to  Herodotus  in  three  distinct  areas,  all  on  or  near  the  north  coast  of  the 

(1)  At  Placie  and  Scylace,  on  the  south  shore  of  Propontis,  a  little  east 
of  Cyzicus,  and  presumably  on  the  secluded  Karadagh  plateau.  These 
Pelasgians  still  retain  their  name,  and  speak  a  peculiar  language  which 
is    not   intelligible  to    their  neighbours.04     Note    that   these    Pelasgians  are 

Mc  Tlfhaayia  Or.  060,  LA.  1498  ;  TltXaoyiKbv  *2  i.  1  16,  ii.  171. 

"Apyos   Or.  1601  ;   n(Kaffybi'"A.  Or.  602,   1296  ;  ,i3  viii.  73   otKtei   8e    ri\v    Uf\oir6vvr)aov    i<?iea 

XleXaaybv  iSos  'Apytlwv  Or.  1247.  eTrra  •   tovtuv  ra  /J.iv  Sio,  avrox^oia  eoi-ra.  Kara 

'•"''  U(\acryia  Suppl.  368  ;    Ut\acrytKuv  'Apyos  X^P7!"    '(SpvTai    vvv    re    nal     rb    iraAai    [ofoeov], 

PJloen.     256;       neAcurytubv     a"rpaTet//.ia  'ApKaSes  re  Kal  Kvvovpioi. 

105-6.  57. 

,:1  Fr.  227.     See  p.  221  below. 

192  J.   L.   MYRES 

situated  immediately  across  the  water  from  the  abode  of  the  Pelasgians 
of  the  Trojan  Catalogue  ;  and  exactly  in  the  direction  to  which  the  south- 
eastward thrust  of  Thracians,  Treres,  and  Kimmerians  in  post-Homeric 
times  had  tended  to  drive  the  Homeric  population  of  south-eastern  Thrace. 
Note  also  that  the  silence  of  Homer,  not  merely  as  to  Pelasgians  in  Asia, 
but  as  to  Thracians  in  what  afterwards  became  Bithynia,  and  also  the 
positive  Homeric  evideuce  as  to  the  non-Pelasgian  character  of  the  population 
of  lemnos  raid  Imbros,  makes  a  very  strong  case  for  assuming  that  this 
Pelasgian  occupation  of  Placie  and  Scylace  results  from  the  same  post- 
Homeric  movement. 

A  similar  raid,  by  some  of  these  same  Pelasgians,  reached  as  far  as  Attica, 
and  effected  a  regular  lodgment  therefor  a  time,  ol  avvocKot  iy  iv  ovr  o 
' A6)]vaL0i<ri.  The  approximate  date  for  this  raid  is  given  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  ii.  51:  'A0y]vaioicn  yap  i]8r)  t  r\v  i  k  av  r  a  e  <?  "  'EiWrjva? 
t  eXeo  v  er  i  UeXaayol  avvoucoi  iyevovro  iv  rf}  ^copy,  6$ev  teal  r'E\\t]ve<; 
r)pl*avTo  vofxiaBrjvai  :  so  that  if  it  is  possible  to  discover  at  what  point 
in  their  history  Herodotus  thought  that  the  Athenians  '  were  just  beginning, 
to  count  as  Hellenes,'  it  will  be  possible  to  assign  at  all  events  a  relative  date 
for  the  time  at  which  these  Pelasgians  '  came  to  be  fellow-lodgers  with  them 
in  their  country.'  This  point  however  will  be  best  reserved  until  we  come  to 
the  question  of  the  Pelasgians  in  Attica.05 

(2)  In  Lemnos  and  Imbros.  These  Pelasgians  also  are  post-Homeric 
intruders :  for  they  expelled  from  Lemnos  the  Miuyans,60  who  are  still 
in  possession  there  in  Homer.67  Moreover  Herodotus  fixes  the  date  of  the 
Minyan  migration  from  Lemnos  to  Laconia  in  the  same  generation  as  the 
Dorian  invasion  of  Peloponnese  :  for  Theras  was  the  brother  of  the  wife 
of  king  Aristodemus.68  These  Pelasgians  were  still  in  the  islands  when 
they  were  annexed  by  Persia  about  505,09  and  were  also  still  in  possession 
when  Miltiades  conquered  them,  not  long  before  493.70  It  has  been  argued 
from  the  phrase  ere  rore  viro  HeXaoycov  ol/ceop,eva<;  in  v.  26  and  from 
the  omission  of  Lemnos  in  the  list  of  extant  Pelasgians  in  i.  57  that 
these  Pelasgians  were  extinct  when  Herodotus  was  writing ;  but  he  nowhere 
states  that  the  Pelasgians  were  wholly  expelled  by  Miltiades,  and  in  i.  57 
he  clearly  hints  at  the  existence  of  baa  aXXa  YleXaayi/ca  iovra  TroXta-fiara 
to  ovvofjia  fiereftaXe,  as  though  there  were  people  who  still  talked  '  Pelasgic ' 
and  were  known  to  be  of  Pelasgic  origin,  but  no  longer  satisfied  his 
other  condition  that  they  should  have  retained  their  proper  tribal  name  ; 
and  this  would  clearly  cover  such  a  case  as  that  of  Lemnos  under  Athenian 

See  below,  §12.  71  Note  that  a   'Lemnian'  who  was  in  the 

86  iv.  1  1.'..  Persian  service  in  480  B.C.  (Hdt.  viii.  11)  counts 

67  77.    7.    468,  23.    747,    the     latter    a    late       as  one  twv  cur  jSao-jAel  'E  \  A  17  v  o:  v  iovTocv.    He 

passage.  also  hears  a  Greek  name,  Antidorus.      If  the 

|;~  iv.  147.  Lemnian    Pelasgians   had   not    '  chai  ged  their 

i;;'  v.  26.  name  '  he  would  presumably  have  been  described 

7"  vi.   1  36,  as  a  '  Pelas'dan.' 


Now  these  Pelasgians  of  Lemnos  and  Imbros  lit',  like  those  of  Placie  and 
Scylace,  right  in  sight  of  the  territory  of  the  Homeric  Pelasgians  ;  and  kept  up 
to  the  close  of  the  fifth  century  a  piratical  connexion  with  the  mainland  :  for 
their  Persian  administrator  had  to  deal  severely  with  them,  rov<;  p.ev  \nro- 
crrpaTtris  eVt  1kv6ci<;  aiTMOfievos,  rov<;  Be  aiveadai  rov  \apeiov  crrparov  airo 
Ixvdecov  oiricru)  aTroKO/ii^ofievovP  and  from  a  base  in  Lemnos  they  would 
only  have  done  this  either  in  south-eastern  Thrace,  or  in  course  of  its  transit 
over  the  straits. 

The  Pelasgians  of  Lemnos  and  Imbros  were  also  concerned  in  early  raids 
on  Attica:  for  the  'Pelasgians  under  Hymettus '  in  Attica,  made  Lemnos, 
among  other  places,  their  retreat :  aWa  re  axfiv  XwP^a  Ka^  %h  koi  Afjfivov.73 
This  connects  them  directly  with  the  men  of  Placie  and  Scylace,  whom 
we  have  already  seen  to  be  among  those  oi  avvocKoi  iyevovTo  '\6ijvalota-i. 
The  raid  on  Brauron  moreover  is  expressly  stated  to  have  been  the  work  of 
these  same  Attic  Pelasgians  after  they  had  left  Attica  and  settled  in  Lemnos.74 

(3)  In  Samotkrace,  Herodotus  accounts  for  similar  survivals  by  the 
same  story.  He  is  illustrating,  by  the  Kafieipcov  opyia  in  Samothrace, 
an  Attic  cult  which  he  believes  to  be  of  Pelasgic  origin.  This  would  not  by 
itself  prove  that  there  were  then,  or  ever  had  been.  Pelasgians  in  Samothrace. 
But  Herodotus  goes  on  to  explain,  t?]v  yap  'Ea/j.odpa/ojv  oi'/ceov  irporepov 
UeXaayol  ovroi,  oiirep  WOijvaioicri  a  v  v  o  t  k  o  t  iyevovro,  zeal  irapk 
Tovrcov  'Ea/xoOp>jiK€<;  ra  opyia  7rapa\a/x/3avouai.Ua  The  phrase  about  the 
(tvvoikol  is  identical,  and  the  present  tense  of  Trapa\ap:[3di>ovcn  suggests  that 
in  Herodotus'  own  time  the  fountain-head  of  Cabiric  orthodoxy  was  an 
extant  Pelasgian  community.7'' 

'-'  '•'.  27.  Samothracian    ritual    still    used   iraKai'av   iSiav 

vi.  137.    The  words  are  part  of  the  citation,  SidAeKTov  (Diod.    5.    48.    2;    cf.    Lobeck,  Jgl 

or  summary,  of  Hecataeus,  already  mentioned  1109,  1348),  and  that   the  cult  itself  was  not 

at  the  end  of  §  7.  then  confined  to  Samothrace.  but  was  observed 

74  A   closely  analogous  case  is  thai   of   the  Isewhere,  not  merely  in  Lemnos  and  Imbros, 

Dolopes  in  Scyros.     Originally  a  mainland  and  but  in  the  Troad  and  on  the  Hellespont  (Strabo 

inland  people,  as  indeed  the  rest  of  them  were  472-3),    we    may    reasonably  infer   that    here 

still  in  the  time  of  the  Persian  Wars  (Hdt.  iv.  also,  quite  apart  from    theories,    Herodotus    is 

132,  185),  they  entered  Scyros  in  post-Homeric  dealing  with  current  verifiable  observations  of 

time,   and  retained   their  hold    on    the    island  North  Aegean  cults,  of  the  same  kind  a-  I 

until  they  were  suppressed  by   Cimon,  as  the  which   he   quotes  -]■>  lineally    for  the    cult   of 

Lemnians  had  been  by   Miltiades.     That  the  Heracles  in  Thasos.     Demetrius  of  Scepsis,  later 

Dolopian     occupation     of    Scyros    was    post-  on,  had  a  theory  of  his  own  about  Samothrace, 

Homeric    seems    to    follow    from    //.     9.    668,  which  is  quite  independent  of  Herodotus,  and 

where  the   island    is   raided  and   captured   by  at    first   sight   quite    different,    but   which  on 

Achilles,  and  from  //.  19.  326  32,  Od.  11.  509,  closer  iuspi  ition  seems  to  show   that   he  had 

where   it   still    forms   part    of  his   dominions.  been  led  by  similar  data  to  a  conclusion   very 

The  case  is  here   too   exactly  analogous   with  similar   to    thai    reached  by   Herodotus  about 

that  of  Lemnos,  11.  14.  230  and    Imbros  //.  these  North  Aegean  Pelasgians.  Samothrace,  he 

14.281.     For  the  further  fate  of  these  Scyrinn  says    (quoted    by    Strabo    472),  was    at    first 

Dolopcs   at   the    hands  of  the   historians,   see  called    MeKirri :    the    name    Zauodpaxr)    is 

p.   221   below.  ad  name,  and  dates  from  the  coming  of  the 

74;»  ii.  51.  ral>iri,  wham                     to   identify  with    the 

From  the  fact  that  in  Roman  times  the  Curetes.      Their  cult  hi                      Phrygian. 

U.S. — VOL.  XXVII.  O 

194  J.   L.   MYRES 

(4)  At  Antandrus,  on  the  south-west  angle  of  the  Troad,  Herodotus  lets 
fall,  unexplained,  the  epithet  rrjv  IleXacryt&a™  He  does  not  assert  that  there 
were  any  Pelasgians  resident  there  in  Hellenic  times ;  but  the  geographical 
position  of  Antandrus  is  such  as  to  facilitate  settlement  there  (as  at  Placie 
and  Scylace)  in  the  event  of  Thracian  pressure  on  the  country  of  the  Homeric 
Pelasgians.  That  such  pressure  was  felt,  and  that  such  settlements  were 
made,  is  clear  from  a  fourth-century  account  of  a  colony  of  European  Edones, 
like  those  of  the  Bithynian  coast,  at  Antandrus  itself77;  and  that  there  was 
some  non-Hellenic  element  at  Antandrus  much  earlier  than  this,  is  clear  from 
the  phrase  AeXeycov  ttoXis  applied  to  it  by  Alcaeus.78  We  have  seen  already 
(p.  183)  how  closely  the  '  Lelegian  theory,'  of  which  this  is  one  of  the  most 
northerly  manifestations,  replaces  further  south  the  '  Pelasgian  theory '  which 
prevails  in  the  Hellespont  and  its  neighbourhood.71' 

The  probability  that  in  the  fifth  century  Antandrus  was  believed  to  be 
not  merely  non-Hellenic,  but  positively  Pelasgian,  in  the  sense  that  it  held  a 
population  of  South-east  European  origin  and  post-Homeric  arrival,  is 
increased  by  the  fragment  of  Hellanicus  which  is  quoted  to  explain  the 
proverb  Ucrdv?]  elfic.  ^r^al  yap  (Hellanicus)  avrrjp  inrh  TleXaaywv 
avSpa7roSia0t]vaiy  zeal  irdXiv  viro  'Epudpaioov  iXevdepooOfjvat.^'  Note  that 
this  proverb  itself  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  Alcaeus,  and  presumably 
the  legend  likewise,  which  in  that  case  falls  within  the  class  of  data 
accessible  to  Herodotus.  No  dates  are  given,  but  the  incident  must  fall 
(a)  not  later  than  the  time  of  Alcaeus  ;  (b)  hardly,  if  at  all,  earlier  than 
the  foundation  of  Erythrae  in  the  time  of  the  '  Ionic  migration  : '  for  the 
poiut  of  the  proverb  is  that  the  disasters  of  Pitane  are  incessant;  so  there 
can  have  been  no  long  interval  between  enslavement  and  liberation.  We 
may  therefore  place  the  incident  in  post-Homeric,  and  probably  in  very 
early  Hellenic,  times  ;  and  we  may  class  this  hint  of  the  presence  of  raiding 
Pelasgians  in  Aeolis  alongside  of  the  other  evidence  of  the  kind.81 

(5)  Near  Crcston,  finally,  on  the  mainland  between  Thrace  and  Macedon 
in  the  district  which  lies  south-westward  of  the  middle  course  of  the 
Strymon,   Herodotus    alludes    to    tois   vvv  en   iova-c    UeXaaywv    rwv    virep 

The  name  ~S.afj.nQpa.Ki}  in  any  case  looks  as  if  it  "s  Strabo,  606. 

recorded   an   intrusion    from  the  neighbouring  -   "9  The  positive  statements  of  Konon  Karr. 

European  mainland,  and  it  is  instructive  to  find  41  and  Mela  i.  18  that  there  were  Pelasgians  at 

it  suggested  that  it  was  a  Phrygian  cult  which  Antandrus    are    only    worth    noting    here    as 

was  intruded,  and  that  its  subject  was  a  group  evidence  of  a  later  revival  of  .the  authority  of 

of    personages,    who    (like    the    Hellespontine  Herodotus.     Mela's    version  contains    an   ana- 

Pelasgians  of  Homer)  have  so  exact  a  counter-  chronism  and  two  pieces  of  thoroughly  Graeco- 

part  in  Crete.  Roman  philology. 

7,;  vii.  4'2.     The  phrase  clearly  denotes  some-  80  Fr.  115  b  =  Zenob.  v.  61. 

thing  peculiar  to  Antandrus,  and  not  common  81  Pliny  N.H.  5.  30.  32  and  Steph.  Byz.  s.v. 

to  the  Greeks  of  Aeolis.   These  latter  are  rbiraAai  add  Cimmeris  to  the  already  long  list  of  ethno- 

Ka\(6fxivoi  Ue\a<ryol,   ws  'EX\i)vwv   \6yos  (vii.  logical  epithets  of  Antandrus. 

9f>),  but  this  is  Greek  theory,   not  llerodotean  Thucydides  on  the  other  hand  seems  tacitly 

observation,  and  is  discussed  in  its  proper  place  to  put  all   this  on  one   side   as    not-proven, 

in  §11.  when    he    specifies    Antandrus    merely   as   an 

77  Aristotle  a  p.  Steph.  Byz.  s.v.  Aeolian  colony  in  viii.  108. 


'Vupcnjvwv  Kptja-TGJva  tt6\lv  oiKeovTwv.^1  They  spoke  a  language  which, 
though  different  from  that  of  their  neighbours,  agreed  with  that  of  the 
Hellespontine  Pelasgians  at  Placie  and  Scylace. 

Much  confusion  has  been  wrought  in  recent  commentary  on  this  passage 
by  the  circumstance  that  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  apparently  read  here 
Kporwva  for  KptjcrTO)va,S3  meaning  thereby  however  not  Croton  in  South  Italy, 
but  Cortona  in  Umbria,  a  reading  which  led  him  to  use  the  passage  as  evi- 
dence for  his  own  peculiar  theory  about  the  origin  of  the  Etruscans.  This 
reading  however  has  been  accepted  and  defended  more  than  once  recently, 
and  notably  by  Prof.  Eduard  Meyer.84 

Those  who  read  Kporoova  however  may  fairly  be  asked  to  meet  the 
following  objections  : — 

(a)  Though  Herodotus  mentions  Umbria  twice,85  he  uses  it  merely  as  a 
general  geographical  expression  for  northern  Italy,  and  displays  no  familiarity 
either  with  the  country  or  with  its  people.  It  is  difficult  therefore  to  believe 
that  he  ventured  upon  exact  philological  comparison  between  the  speech  of 
the  people  of  Cortona  and  that  of  the  Pelasgians  on  the  Hellespont ;  and  still 
more  that  there  should  be  truth  in  it  if  he  did.  It  is  only  on  the  popular  a 
priori  assumption  that  in  a  passage  of  Herodotus  an  absurdity  is  more  likely 
to  be  the  true  reading,  that  the  variant  commends  itself  at  all  ;  and  it  is,  in 
fact,  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  Herodotus  that  the  reading  KpoTwva  is 
commonly  defended. 

(b)  On  the  other  hand  Herodotus  shows  himself  particularly  well 
informed  about  the  districts  inland  of  Chalcidiee  ;  and  his  descriptions  of 
lake  Prasias  and  of  the  road  from  Paeonia  into  Macedon  have  all  the  look 
of  eyewitness.80 

(c)  His  association  of  Pelasgians  with  Tvpaijvo!  and  Kprjarcovaloi  is  con- 
firmed by  the  statement  of  Thucydides,87  who  had  also  special  reasons  for 
acquaintance  with  this  neighbourhood.  There  are  two  discrepancies  in  detail, 
(1)  that  Thucydides  is  speaking  of  a  mixed  population  au/j,p,tKTa  eOvrj,  nearer 
the  sea-coast,  and  (2)  that  he  speaks  of  it  as  consisting  of  /3ap/3dpwi/ 
SiyXcoa-afov.  But  they  do  not  at  all  affect  the  conclusion  that  Thucydides 
either  was  independently  acquainted  with  the  same  state  of  things,  of  which 
Herodotus  describes  the  earlier  and  more  inland  counterpart,  or  was  reading 
Kpi']or(t)va  in  the  passage  of  Herodotus  which  is  in  question.88  That  such 
avpipuKTa  edmj  should  have  come  into  existence  nearer  the  seaboard,  is  exactly 
what  we  should  expect  as  the  result  of  successive  thrusts  from  one  northern 
intruder  after  another.      That  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Chalcidic  colonies 

82  i.  57.  "7  iv.  109. 

83  i.  29.  Sa  That  In-  really  knew  the  country,  and  that 

84  E.  Meyer,  Forschungen z.  alt.  Gesch.  [Halle       there   was  such   a  district     for  even    this  lias 
1891)  i.  pp.  1   124.  been  denied  latteily— is  clear  from  his  reference 

i-  94,  iv.   19.  to  rwoTcciia  in 
86  v.  15-17. 

196  J.  L.  MYRES 

the  natives  should  have  become  bilingual,  is  again  exactly  what  happens 
wherever  two  cultures  meet:  the  mongrel  population  just  beyond  the 
Chalcidic  '  pale '  learnt  Greek  for  use  '  in  town,'  without  forgetting  their 
own  language  for  communication  with  their  friends  in  the  interior. 

(d)  There  is  collateral  evidence  of  community  of  population  between  this 
neighbourhood  behind  Chalcidice  and  those  other  districts  in  which  an 
actual  Pelasgian  population  is  best  demonstrable.  (a)  In  the  case  of 
Lemnos,  the  Homeric  Sinties,S9  though  they  do  not  appear  to  have  survived 
there  into  historic  times,  have  their  counterparts  in  a  Thracian  tribe,  known 
to  Hellanicus,90  which  has  its  habitat  fixed  by  Thucydides 91  as  lying  on 
the  left  flank  of  Sitalces'  inarch  from  Thrace  into  Macedon,  while  Paeonia  lay 
on  his  right.  It  has  left  its  name,  moreover,  in  that  Heraclea  Sintica, 
of  which  the  site  is  fixed  on  the  right  or  western  bank  of  the  middle 
Strymon,  a  little  N.  E.  of  the  district  of  Creston.92  (/3)  In  the  case  of 
the  Hellespontine  area,  Herodotus  accepts  without  question  a  European 
origin  for  the  Asiatic  Phrygians  (who  had  indeed  but  recently  entered 
Asia  in  Homeric  times)  and  compares  them  with  the  Macedonian  Bpt/ye?.93 
He  also  locates  Bpvyoi 94  between  the  ~Xa\rct8ifcbv  yevos  and  the  Pieres 
(who  lay  cast  of  the  Strymon) 95  in  a  list  which  runs  in  an  order  which 
is  quite  intelligible  geographically:  that  is  to  say,  they  lay  somewhere 
between  the  Strymon  and  the  promontory  of  Mt.  Athos.  This  all  agrees  with 
the  locality  indicated  with  these  Bpvyoi,  whom  he  calls  '  Thracians,'  and  who 
attacked  the  army  of  Mardonius,  at  a  time  when  its  escorting  fleet  was 
destroyed  off  Mt.  Athos.93  The  bisection  of  the  European  TSpvyot-Bpiyes 
is  in  turn  paralleled  by  the  duplication  of  the  Pieres,  some  of  whom  are 
east  of  the  Strymon,97  while  others,  far  west  of  it,  are  next  neighbours  of 
the  Perrhaebians  of  Thessaly.98 

Like  the  Bpvyoi,  the  Edoni  of  the  lower  Strymon,  who  are  also  one  of 
the  components  of  the  avp-puK-ra  eOvrj  of  Thucydides,99  have  their  Asiatic 
counterparts,  as  we  have  seen  at  Antandrus  in  the  fourth  century  epithet 
'HS&W?,  where  Herodotus  had  written  rrjv  UeXaaycSa.  The  M}^gdones, 
also,  who  for  Herodotus  10°  and  Thucydides101  inhabit  a  district  of  Macedon 
next  west  of  Creston,  north-west  of  Chalcidice,  and  east  of  the  Axius,  and 
survived  in  Strabo's  time  as  a  subdivision  of  the  Edones  near  lake  Prasias,102 
had  however  by  that  time  almost  vanished  out  of  Europe,  and  were  best 
studied,  like  the  Pelasgians  of  Herodotus,  on  the  south  shore  of  Propontis 
next  east  of  the  Doliones.  For  Strabo,  they  are  thus  immigrants  from 
Europe,  and  of  the  same  character  as  the  Phrygians,  the  Mysians,  and  the 
Doliones  themselves.103     Here,  again,  no  theory  is  in  question  :  it  is  simply 

89  //.  i.  .',9k  od.  8,  294.  '"  vi.  i.V 

;"  Fr.  112.  97  vii.  112. 

'"  ii.  98.  !'8  vii.  131.     Cf.  177. 

,J2  The  rP-n<TToovia  of  Thuc.  ii.  99.     In  Roman           "  iv.  109. 

tim<  s  there  were  traces  of  Zivrui  on  both  banks  10°  vii.  123-4,  127. 

of  tin-  Strymon  :  Strabo  331.  uu  ii.  99-100. 

5.3  vii.  73.  m»  Strabo,  tV.  11. 

1.4  vii.  185.  103  Stral.o,  566,  575,  736,  747. 
'•'■'  vii.  112-3. 


a  question,  how  much  collateral  evidence  exists  to  support  an  observation  of 
fact  on  the  part  of  Herodotus,  that  a  split  tribe  could  inhabit  Placie,  Scylace, 
and  the  Strymon  valley  without  appreciable  damage  to  its  common  speech. 

(c)  The  circumstance  that  Herodotus  mentions  a  Kpijarava  ttoXlv 
has  been  criticized  in  view  of  Thucydides'  statement  that  his  au/x/xiKTa  Win) 
lived  Kara  fjuxpa  TroXicrfiara.1^  But  first,  Thucydides'  statement  refers  not 
to  the  people  of  the  district  of  Creston  but  to  the  av/x/xiKTa  Wvq  of  the  coast- 
land  further  south ;  secondly,  it  would  be  difficult  to  prove,  even  if  it  did 
refer  to  Krestonia,  that  some  one  or  other  of  these  iroklafMara  was  not  called 
Kpyja-roov ;  thirdly,  that  there  was  such  a  tto^U?  in  later  times  is  stated  posi- 
tivelv  by  Stephanus  (s.  v.)  and  an  appropriate  site  for  it  exists  at  the 
modern  settlement  of  Kilidj. 

So  far  as  we  have  gone,  all  the  Herodotean  evidence  goes  straight 
back  to  the  denotative  usage  in  Homer,  which  makes  the  Pelasgians  a 
specific  North  Aegean  people.  Only,  for  Herodotus,  instead  of  being  located 
on  the  mainland  (with  a  single  offshoot  in  Crete),  they  are  projected 
into  the  North  Aegean  islands,  and  onto  the  Hellespontine  shore  of  Asia  : 
exactly  as  the  known  stresses  of  the  post-Homeric  age  would  have  led 
us  to  guess  would  be  the  case.1""'  These  'actual' Pelasgians  of  Herodotus, 
moreover,  retained  still  in  his  time  a  linguistic  character  which  marks 
them  as  having  issued,  at  an  earlier  stage  still,  from  a  centre  of  dispersal 
sufficiently  far  back  in  the  Thracian  mainland  to  permit  similar  projection  of  one 
band  of  them  into  the  basin  of  the  Strymon  ;  and  so  puts  their  case  on  all  fours 
with  that  of  the  Herodotean  Phrygians.  Whether  all  this  observation  was 
accurately  made,  is  beside  the  question  here,  and  is  not  conclusively  proved 
even  by  its  consistency  within  itself.  All  that  we  are  concerned  with,  here,  is 
that  such  observations  were  not  only  possible  in  the  time  of  Herodotus,  but 
are  recorded  by  him  as  having  been  made.  It  is  equally  beside  the  question, 
whether  they  are  consistent  or  not  with  his  general  '  Pelasgic  Theory,' 
which  must  engage  attention  next. 

|  11. — Herodotus :  (c)  his  general  Pelasgic  Theory. 

If  we  look  now  to  his  connotative  use  of  the  name  '  Pelasgian,'  we  shall 
find  that  Herodotus  holds  a  well-defined  'Pelasgic  Theory'  of  the  ethnology 
of  Greece.  Once  upon  a  time  all  that  is  now  called  Hellas  was  called 
'  Pelasgia '  and  was  inhabited  by  Pelasgians.10"'"  These,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  have  become  Hellcnized  gradually;  and  the  crucial  test  of  Hellenization  is 
the  change  of  language  from  •  Pelasgian  '  to  Hellenic.1"•"',•  Herodotus  admits 
however  that  it  is  only  by  the  study  of  the  speech  of  the  '  actual'  Pelasgians 
discussed  in  the  last  section,  that  any  idea  can  be  formed  of  what  '  Pelasgian 
speech  '  was  like.  

1114  Hdt.  i.  57.     Time.  iv.  109.  '""'  i-  56  7,  ii.  52-56. 

108  For  indications  of  such  a  movement  even  "  ''  i.  ."7. 

within  tin-  Homeric  age  see  p.  1S1  above. 

198  J.  L.   MYRES 

Of  this  metamorphosis  of  theoretical  pre-Hellenic  Pelasgian  into  actual 
historic  Hellene,  Herodotus  quotes  particular  instances  in  several  districts  of 
Greece.  Let  us  take  these  districts  in  geographical  order  from  north  to 

(1)  At  Dodona,  though  Herodotus  does  not  definitely  assert  that 
there  were  ever  any  Pelasgian  residents,  he  states  that  the  oracle  was  consulted 
by  '  the  Pelasgians  '  in  primitive  times.105c  He  had  learned  also,  apparently  on 
Dodonaean  authority,  the  theory  that  in  early  times  '  the  Pelasgians'  knew  no 
names  for  their  gods,  and  only  acquired  names  later,  and  from  abroad.  Now 
there  is  nothing  in  all  this  which  is  not  obvious  '  by  inspection  '  to  any  one  who 
has  before  him  (1)  the  Homeric  phrase  about  Dodonaean  Zeus,  (2)  the  Hesiodic 
description  of  Dodona  as  YleXaaycov  ehpavov,  and  (3)  the  Herodotean  obser- 
vation that  '  actual '  Pelasgians  talked  a  language  different  from  Greek.  The 
reasoning  may  be  formulated  as  follows.  Even  without  Hesiodic  commentary 
it  might  well  seem  likely  to  any  fifth  century  Hellene  with  a  '  Pelasgian 
Theory,'  that  the  Homeric  epithet  UeXaayi/ce  meant  '  god  of  Pelasgians,' 
i.e.  of  the  Pelasgian  inhabitants  of  Dodona.  If  so,  Pelasgians  at  Dodona, 
or  their  descendants,  were  calling  the  god  of  Dodona  '  Zeus.'  But 
'Zeus'  is  the  Greek  name  for  the  god  of  Dodona;  and  as  the  Pelasgian 
language  is  ex  liypothcsi  different  from  Greek,  the  word  for  'Zeus'  in  Pelasgic 
must  have  been  different,  if  there  was  one.  But  was  there  a  word  for  Zeus 
in  Pelasgic  ?  Enquiry  at  Dodona,  possibly  elsewhere,  reveals  none  ;  all  the 
rSdpftapoi  SiyXcoaaoc,  who  are  within  hail,  call  Zeus  '  Zeus  '  and  nothing  else. 
Yet  Achilles  addresses  Zeus  as  YleXaayi/ce,  '  god  of  Pelasgians : '  he  was 
worshipped  therefore  by  them  in  their  unconverted  'Pelasgian'  days.  In 
those  days  therefore  Zeus  of  Dodona  was  worshipped  as  a  nameless  god, 
and  is  now  called  Zeus,  only  because  '  Zeus '  is  the  Greek  name  for 
him.     Q.E.I). 

(2)  In  Thcssahj,  though  Herodotus  does  not  state  that  there  were 
Pelasgians  there,  it  is  possible  that  he  is  assuming  their  presence  when  lie 
describes  the  Aeolian  Hellenes  of  north-west  Asia  Minor  as  to  irdXcu 
fcaXeofievot  UeXaayoc,  &)<?  'EXXr'jvcou  A6yo9.105d  The  qualifying  phrase  charac- 
terizes this  attribution  of  Pelasgian  origin  as  a  matter  of  current  Greek 
belief,  and  as  something  quite  distinct  from  the  '  Pelasgian '  peculiarities  of 
Antandrus — whatever  they  were — as  has  been  noted  already  in  §  10  above. 
This  current  Greek  belief  must  mean  that  these  Aeolians  represent 
either  Pelasgians  domiciled  in  Aeolis  and  Hellenized  in  situ,  or  Pelasgians 
formerly  domiciled  in  Thessaly,  and  Hellenized  there  before  their  migration 
to  Asia  Minor.  In  the  former  alternative,  the  phrase  goes  far  to  explain  his 
phrase "  Avravhpov  Trjv  YleXaayiSa,  but  at  the  same  time  makes  it  difficult  to 
see  in  what  peculiar  sense  Antandrus  was  worth  calling  '  Pelasgian.'  In  the 
latter,  Herodotus  would  seem  once  more  to  be  putting  his  own  interpretation 
on  the  Homeric  phrase  to  UeXaayiKov  "A/5709  which  (as  we  have  seen)  was,  by 

"'■""'  ii.  :>0  52.  ",rti  vii.  95. 


the  time  of  Hellanicus,  (1)  extended  so  as  to  include  Thessaly  in  general,  and 
(2)  confused  with  Pelasgiotis  and  with  the  country  round  Larisa,  with  which  in 
the  Homeric  Catalogue  it  is  clearly  contrasted.1056  In  any  case.,  the  phrase  of 
Herodotus  about  the  Asiatic  Aeolians  is  either  fair  commentary  on  the 
trans-Hellespontine  thrust  of  Priam's  Pelasgians,  or  else  a  not-unnatural 
interpretation  of  the  phrase  to  WeXaa-ytKov  "Apyos.  Here  also  therefore 
we  may  regard  Herodotus  as  going  back  to  Homeric  authority,  and  as 
admitting  current  Greek  belief  only  so  far  as  it  seemed  to  conform  to 
Homeric  data. 

(3)  In  Attica,  Herodotus  describes  the  aboriginal  population  as  a 
Pelasgian  tribe,  the  KpavaoL101''  Here  we  have  a  fresh  feature  :  a  Pelasgian 
genus  subdivided  into  species  with  tribal  names.  There  is  no  Homeric 
authority  either  for  Pelasgians  or  for  Cranaans  in  Attica,  nor  for  any  of  the 
regions  which  follow,  further  south ;  so  that  here  we  are  free  to  regard 
Herodotus  as  summarizing  contemporary  theory,  and  perhaps  even  improving 
on  it. 

These  Cranaan  Pelasgians  of  Attica  went  through,  not  one,  but  several 
metamorphoses,107  before  they  won  their  way  to  Hellenism  as  '  Ionians,'  in  the 
time  of  Ion,  son  of  Xuthus ;  but  they  had  made  their  first  step  as  early  as 
the  days  of  Cecrops.  Further  proof  that  the  Pelasgians  of  Attica  were 
Hellenic  already  at  the  time  of  the  Ionic  migration  is  given  when  (in  recounting 
the  origin  of  the  Ionians  of  Asia  Minor,108  whom  Herodotus  believed  to  have 
come  immediately,  though  not  ultimately,  from  Attica)  the  only  Pelasgian 
admixture  which  he  mentions,  in  that  very  mongrel  crew,  takes  the 
form,  not  of  Attic  but  of  'Ap/cdSe?  UeXaayoL  The  quondam  Pelasgians  of 
Attica  were  therefore  no  longer  Pelasgic  when  the  Ionic  colonies  were  to  be 

The  passages  about  Pelasgians  in  Attica,  however,  present  difficulties  of 
their  own  which  entitle  them  to  separate  discussion  later  on  £  12).  For  the 
moment  it  is  sufficient  to  have  discovered  (1)  that  'Pelasgian'  for  Herodotus 
is  a  genus  including  tribal  species ;  (2)  that  the  process  of  Hellenization  was 
in  some  cases  capable  of  analysis,  and  approximately  datable;  (3)  that  the 
crucial  event  in  this  process  was  for  Herodotus,  as  for  Hellanicus  and  for 
Thucydides,  the  arrival  in  the  country  of  some  genuine  '  son  of  Hellen.' 

(4)  In  North  Peloponncse,  fromSicyon  westward,  there  once  lived  a  people 
who  were  Pelasgians  generically,  with  the  specific  tribal  name  of  AlytaXek.10' 
These,  like  the  Pelasgian  Kpavaoi  of  Attica,  became  Hellenized  by  means  of 
Ion,  son  of  Xuthus;  and  then,  as  fully  Hellenized  'Ionians,'  migrated  into 
Attica,  and  thence  again  to  the  Asiatic  Ionia. 

(5)  In  the  Cycladcs  the  islanders  are,  for  Herodotus,  kcu  touto  IleXaayLKov 

-      I>.  17'.'  ami  188.  i.  H<5- 

106  vjj_  .,4  l   vii.  94. 

1"7  viii.   11. 

200  J.  L.  MYRES 

edvos  :  but  the  context  1P-'a  does  not  show  whether  he  means  Pelasgian 
aborigines,  Hellenized  in  situ,  or  a  branch  (like  their  reputed  kinsmen,  the 
Ionians  of  Asia  Minor)  of  the  Ionized  Pelasgians  of  North  Peloponnese.110 

(6)  In  the  Peloponnesian  A rgos,  Herodotus  describes  a  population,  auto- 
chthonous and  Pelasgian,  as  receiving  from  immigrant  Danaids  the  rite 
which  the  Greeks  call  thesmopkoria.  The  natives  in  this  case  had  neither 
the  name  nor  the  thing.  Elsewhere  he  quotes  Danaus  (though  he  was 
not  '  a  son  of  Hellen')  side  by  side  with  Xuthus,  as  one  of  those  whose  coining 
marked  the  crisis  before  which  the  people  of  all  North  Peloponnese  iicakeovTo 
Ue\a<ryol  AlyiaXels.  Another  point  of  theory  emerges  here.  Hellenism  in 
the  sense  of  the  operation  of  a  '  son  of  Hellen '  is  not  the  only  form  of  en- 
lightenment. Danaus  from  Egypt  can  '  Hellenize '  in  a  generic  sense  :  at  all 
event.-  his  arrival  troubles  the  Pelasgian  waters  with  the  movement  of 
a  new  spirit.  Have  we  perhaps  here  a  reminiscence  of  the  phase,  which 
we  conjectured  earlier,111  when  Danaus  competed  with  Hellen  for  eponymous 
rank  in  Greece  \ 

Meanwhile  it  is  clear  that  though  Herodotus  may  perhaps  have  shared 
with  his  contemporaries  the  current  misconception  as  to  the  Pelasgian 
claims  of  the  Peloponnesian  Argos,  there  is  no  evidence  that  for  him 
this  district  stood  in  an}"  such  special  relation  to  Pelasgian  antiquity  as  had 
been  assumed  recently  by  the  genealogists. 

(7)  In  Arcadia  there  were  'Ap/caSe?  UeXaayoi, — again  apparently  a 
specific  sub-division  of  a  Pelasgian  genus, — who  took  part  in  the  colonization 
of  Ionia.11'2  The  Arcadians  also  were  regarded  by  Herodotus  as  the  sole 
survivors  113  of  the  aboriginal  population  of  Peloponnese  ;  and  this  aboriginal 
population  was  apparently  continuous  with  that  of  '  Pelasgian  '  Argos.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  his  formal  survey  of  Peloponnesian  ethnology,114  though 
he  classes  the  Cynurians  with  the  Arcadians  as  autochthonous,  he  omits 
to  call  either  of  them  Pelasgians.  We  cannot  say  therefore  that  there  is  in 
Herodotus  any  preferential  treatment  of  Arcadia  as  a  source,  or  habitation,  of 

(8)  In  Cynuria  the  same  remark  applies.  Though  autochthonous, 
the  Cynurians  are  not  called  Pelasgians  :  their  pedigree  is  taken  only 
so  far  back  as  to  describe  them  as  '  apparently  Ionians,'  who  have  however 
since  '  become  thoroughly  Dorized.' n"  Here  we  get  a  fresh  point  of 
Herodotean  theory.  Hellenism,  like  Pelasgism,  is  a  genus  which  includes 
diverse   species.     '  Ionian '    Hellenism    is   one    type,   '  Dorian '    Hellenism    is 

As  in  the  case  of  Asiatic  Aeolis  (2)  above.  evidence,       this     tempting      guess      remains 

110  It  there  were  any  early  evidence  for  the  unverifiable. 
legends  ofThraciansinNaxos  and  other  Cycladic  1U  p.  181,  above. 

islands,  it  would  be  tempting  to  regard  this  n-  i.  46. 

ascription   of  'Pelasgian'  origin  as  a  hint  of  11::  ii.  171. 

raids   of    Hellespontine    Pelasgians  like    thos  1U  viii.  7.S. 

which  we  have  detected  already  as' far  afield  as  "•"'  viii.  73. 

Crete  and  Attica.     But  in  default  of  such  early 


another;  and  it  is  possible  for  avr6)(6ove<;  to  undergo  conversion,  not  merely 
from  outer  darkness  to  any  one  of  these  types  of  enlightenment,  but  from 
any  one  sect  to  another.  The  latter  process,  like  the  former,  is  a  long 
one  :  eKheScopievprai  Be,  he  can  say  of  the  'Ionian'  Cynurians,  vtto  'Apyeioov 
ap%6fievoi  Kal  too  y^povov. 

§   12. — Herodotus:    {d)  the  Pelasgians  in  Attica. 

Between  the  statements  of  what  I  have  called  'Pelasgian  theory' 
in  Herodotus,  and  his  accounts  of  Pelasgian  tribes  either  actual,  or  only 
recently  extinct,  lies  one  group  of  passages  which  has  caused  some  perplexity, 
but  seems  to  me  susceptible  of  simple  and  instructive  explanation.  The 
people  of  Attica,  as  we  have  seen  in  §  11,  are  for  Herodotus  autochthonous 
Pelasgians,  who  '  became  Ionian '  and  so  entered  the  Hellenic  family, 
in  the  days  of  Ion  son  of  Xuthos.110  On  the  other  hand,  just  at  this  very 
phase  'A6)]vaioicrc  ?;8>;  r^vcKaura  i<;'R\\riva<;  rt-Xeovcri,  UeXacryol  ctvvoikol 
iyevovTo  ev  rfj  x^PV  '■ II7  and  by  the  side  of  these  Pelasgian  '  country 
cousins,'  the  autochthonous  Attic  Pelasgians  really  seemed  quite  civilized, 
odev  Kal  "E\X)^e?  ijp^avro  vofuadfjvai.  Of  these  intrusive  and  relatively 
recent  Pelasgians,  Herodotus  gives  further  particulars,  partly  on  the  authority 
of  Hecataeus,  partly  from  local  Attic  tradition. 

(1)  He  quotes  Hecataeus  to  the  effect  that  it  was  these  Pelasgians  who 
built  for  the  Athenians  the  wall  round  the  Acropolis.  This  reveals,  as  one 
element  in  the  story,  an  aetiological  myth  about  the  so-called  Pelasgic  Wall, 
which  was  still  defensible  in  the  days  of  the  Peisistratidae  and  may  be  iden- 
tified with  some  certainty  as  that  Mycenaean  fortress-wall  of  which  remnants 
are  still  to  be  seen.  Of  the  open  space  below  this  wall,  which  Thucydides 
knows  as  to  Ue\aayuc6i>,  neither  Herodotus  nor  Hecataeus  has  anything 
to  say. 

(2)  He  quotes  Hecataeus  further  to  the  effect  that  these  Pelasgian 
wall-builders  were  allowed  to  settle  in  the  country  vtto  top  TpLtjaaov,  that  is, 
as  the  story  shows,  between  Hymettus,  the  Ilissus,  and  the  Saronic  gulf. 
This  repeats  (what  we  already  know)  that  these  Pelasgians  are  not  auto- 
chthonous in  Attica,  but  recent  immigrants  ;  and  it  takes  this  belief  as  far 
back  as  Hecataeus. 

(3)  Eventually  those  Pelasgians  misbehaved,  and  were  expelled  ;  and 
went  and  occupied  aWa  re  .  .  .  ^wp/a  Kal  Sr/  Ka\  Arjfivov.118  This  also 
comes  from  Hecataeus,  and  consequently  goes  back  to  a  contemporary  of 
the  conquest  of  actual  Pelasgians  in  Lemnos  by  Otanes,  between  510  and 
500  B.C. ;  and  also  of  their  conquest  by  Miltiades,  which  belongs  to  the 
same  generation.119 

116  viii.   H.  I"  vi.  137. 

117  ii.  51.  »»  v.  26.  (Otanes]  :  ri.  136-140  [Mittiades). 

202  J.   L.   MYRES 

(4)  Local  Attic  tradition  added  this,1-0  that  after  settling  in  Lemnos, 
some  of  these  Pelasgians  returned  and  raided  Brauron  on  the  east  coast 
of  Attica ;  and  that  they  did  this  €v  i^e7ncrrup,€vot  tcl?  'A$i]va(cov  oprds, 
presumably  therefore  within  the  lifetime  of  those  who  had  been  themselves 
expelled  from  Attica. 

(5)  The  Pelasgian  occupation  of  Lemnos  is  assigned  by  Herodotus  to  an 
ascertainable  date.  In  Homer,  as  we  have  seen,1-1  the  Minyans  have  not  yet 
been  expelled  from  the  island.  They  were  however  expelled,  according  to 
Herodotus,1"22  in  the  third  generation  of  the  Argonautic  occupation;  that  is, in  the 
generation  after  the  Trojan  war,  for  Euneus,  who  is  king  of  Lemnos  in  Homer, 
is  the  son  of  Jason,  who  occupied  the  island.  But  here  there  is  a  slight  hitch 
in  the  story.  The  local  Attic  tradition,  as  we  have  seen,  attributed  the  raid 
on  Brauron  to  Pelasgians  who  were  ovtol  Arjpivov  Tore  vep,6/u.evoi ;  in  which 
case  the  raid  was  subsequent  to  the  occupation  of  Lemnos.  But  in  telling 
the  story  of  the  Minyans,  Herodotus  says  that  they  were  expelled  by  Pelas- 
gians ro)v  e/c  ¥>pavpwvo$  Xrjio-a/JLevuiv  ra?  'Adijvatwv  jwaiKa^.  It  is  possible 
that  he  merely  adds  this  detail  for  the  sake  of  identification,  and  without 
intending  to  say  that  they  had  already  raided  Brauron  ;  but  at  first  sight 
it  certainly  looks  as  if  he  meant  to  put  the  raid  before  not  after  the  occupation. 
And  there  is  this  further  evidence  in  the  same  direction.  The  rest  of  the 
story  of  the  Minyans  dates  their  eventual  arrival  in  Laconia  within  the 
generation  (jov  8e  avrcv  tovtov  xpovov)1'13  of  Theras,  great-great-grand- 
son of  Polyneices  of  Thebes,  and  brother-in-law  of  Aristodemus,  about 
the  time  of  whose  death  the  Dorians  conquered  Laconia ;  and  this  entry 
was  fully  two  generations  after  the  Trojan  War.  Either  therefore  we  must 
allow  the  best  part  of  a  generation  for  the  'exodus'  or  '  iwto?  '  of  the 
Minyans,  or  else  there  must  be  a  misfit  of  one  generation  in  the  chronology ; 
and  in  the  latter  event  it  may  well  be  the  reason  why  there  is  ambiguity  as 
to  sequence  of  the  occupation  of  Lemnos  and  the  raid  on  Brauron.  But  there 
is  no  serious  inconsistency;  and  though  the  whole  story  comes  to  us  from  two, 
or  more  probably  three,  independent  authorities, — Hecataeus,  local  Attic, 
and  perhaps  local  Laconian  tradition, — we  are  in  a  position  now  to  fit  it  all 
together  as  a  single  series  of  events,  of  brief  duration  and  approximately 
ascertainable  date ;  for  it  falls  in  any  event  within  a  generation  of  the  Dorian 
invasion  of  Peloponnese. 

According  to  Herodotus  therefore — and  I  do  not  claim  at  present  any 
earlier  authority  for  this  version, — once  upon  a  time  there  were  Pelasgians 
in  Attica,  in  the  same  sense  as  there  were  Pelasgians  everywhere  in  Greece  in 
pr. '-Hellenic  days.  Just  as  these  Attic  Pelasgians  were  beginning  to  'count 
as  Hellenes,'  in  the  days  of  Ion  son  of  Xuthus,124  Attica  was  invaded  by  quite 
a  different  sort  of  Pelasgians,  of  the  Hellespontine  variety  who  survived  at 
Placie,    Scylace,    Lemnos,    Imbros,    and    Samothrace.     His   repeated    phrase 

.  138.  '-:;  iv.  147. 

121  II.  1  1.  230  and  §2  above.  I-1  viii   44. 

122  iv.  145. 


o'l  avvoiKoi  eyevovro  *A6))i>atoio-t  can  hardly  mean  anything  else  than  that 
this  Hellespontine  type  of  Pelasgians  is  the  source  of  the  invaders  of  Attica  ; 
though  no  doubt,  as  in  the  case  of  Lemnos,  Pelasgians  ejected  from  Attica 
retreated  in  a  direction  where  there  were  settlements  of  their  own  countrymen. 
As  we  have  fifth  century  authority  for  the  contemporary  existence  of  Ion  son 
of  Xuthus  and  of  Theseus,  and  as  Theseus  was  himself  an  Argonaut,  we  can 
assign  the  invasion  of  Attica  by  Hellespontine  Pelasgians  to  the  generation  of 
the  Argonauts  approximately ;  and  as  their  expulsion  from  Attica  occurred 
not  earlier  than  the  first  generation  after  the  Trojan  War  (i.e.  the  third  of  the 
Argonautic  occupation  of  Lemnos)  and  not  later  than  the  second,  we  can  give 
to  it  a  duration  of  about  three  generations,  and  an  approximate  date  within  the 
fifty  years  which  preceded  the  Dorian  invasion.  Within  these  fifty  years  falls 
the  raid  on  Brauron,  a  second  attempt  of  Hellespontine  Pelasgians  to  get  a 
footing  in  Attica ;  but  whether  of  fresh  Pelasgians  from  Hellespont,  or  of 
ex-Attic  Pelasgians  from  Lemnos,  remains  in  doubt.  Within  these  two  post- 
Trojan  generations  fall  also  the  Pelasgian  occupation  of  Placie  and  Scylace 
(in  a  neighbourhood  which,  for  the  Catalogue,  is  not  Pelasgian)  and  probably 
also  the  settlements  in  Imbros,  Samothrace,  and  the  like  :  for  Imbros  also  has 
no  Pelasgians  in  Homer,  though  it  had  already,  as  we  have  seen,  a  Sintian 
population,  which  to  fifth  century  eyes 125  must  have  seemed  to  be  of  mainland 

Now  we  have  seen  already  that  the  department  in  which  Herodotus 
seems  to  have  struck  out  a  new  line  of  Pelasgian  enquiry  is  in  the  collection 
of  evidence  of  the  survival  of  actual  Pelasgians  in  the  North  Aegean,  round 
the  fringe,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Homeric  Pelasgians  of  king  Priam  ;  and  I  do 
not  think  that  we  are  unduly  straining  the  sense  of  the  passages  which  deal 
with  the  Pelasgian  invaders  of  Attica,  if  we  regard  these  also  as  a  contribution 
to  the  same  enquiry. 

That  Herodotus  regarded  some  part  of  the  population  of  the  promontory 
of  Attica  as  still  of  non-Attic  origin,  is  suggested  further  by  the  terms  of  his 
comparison  between  Attica  and  Scythia.  In  this  comparison,  when  once 
allowance  has  been  made  for  the  geographical  conceptions  of  the  fifth  century, 
all  the  other  features  quoted  are  markedly  apposite;  and  when  he  goes  on  to  say 
Kal  Trapa7r\ij(ria  Tavrr)  Ka\  oi  Tavpoi  vepovraL  -/}■?  'S.kvOikijs,  &)?  el  rij<;  'ArTCicr}? 
aWo  hdvos  ical  /xrj  'A0i]valoi  ve/xotaro  tov  yovvbv  rbv  —oviuaKov,  /ctX.,  it  is 
difficult  not  to  believe  that,  although  he  does  not  mention  them,  he  has  the 
vision  of  non- Attic  Pelasgians  in  his  mind.  It  may  indeed  have  been  common 
knowledge  in  his  time  that  these  predatory  Pelasgians  had  had  a  footing  about 
Sunium,  as  well  as  '  under  Hymettus.' 

The  Herodotean  phase  of  the  'Pelasgian  Theory5  may  therefore  be 
summarized  as  follows.  The  logographers  have  done  their  work  :  they  have 
multiplied  Pelasgian  origins  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  possible  already  to 
generalize.     All  Greece,  in  fact,  was  '  Pelasgian  '  once,  and  the  large  majority 

I"'  Time.  '1.  !|s.  Herodotus'  in  the  G  rnal,  viiL 

126  See  my   paper    'On    the    Maps   used    by       1896,  pp.  • 

204  J.  L.  MYRES 

of  actual  Hellenes  are  by  descent  Pelasgians,  Hellenized.  But  'Pelasgian'  has 
now  ceased  to  be  a  race-name,  and  means  the  pie-Hellenic  phase  of  divers  tribes 
whose  proper  names  are  known.  There  is  even  the  beginning  of  a  tentative 
and  unformulated  theory  of  how  Hellenizatiun  is  effected.  In  the  light  of 
this  Pelasgian  generalization,  and  of  the  new  '  Hellenic  Theory '  which  is  its 
corollary,  the  special  claims  of  Dodona,  Thessaly,  Arcadia,  and  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian  Argos,  are  seen  to  fade  away.  Attica,  on  the  other  hand,  begins 
to  rise  to  new  prominence  in  the  story ; 127  due  partly  to  the  recent  active 
contact  between  Peisistratid  Attica  and  the  'actual'  Pelasgians  of  Lemnos ; 
partly  to  the  contemporary  desire  to  find  some  historical  explanation  of  the 
rapid  rise  and  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  Attic  State  since  Cleisthenes ; 128 
but  partly  also  to  the  increased  importance  which  the  fifth  century  is  coming 
to  attribute  to  the  evidence  of  cultural  survivals,  in  comparison  with  that  of 
place-names  or  of  literary  or  oral  tradition.  Philology  and  Genealogy,  in 
fact,  are  rapidly  giving  place  to  Anthropology  as  the  instrument  of  historical 
research.  And  anthropology  while  it  has  nothing  to  say  of  Thessaly,  and  can 
prove  only  foreign  influences  in  Arcadia,  has  already  detected  numerous  cases 
of  survival  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Homeric  Pelasgians  on  the  Hellespont, 
together  with  a  true  cause  for  their  actual  distribution.  And  when  we  come 
next  to  consider  the  attitude  of  Thucydides  to  the  question,  we  shall  find  the 
same  tendency  predominant. 

§  13. — Thucydides. 

From  Thucydides,  with  his  extraordinary  concentration  upon  those 
aspects  of  history  which  he  regards  as  his  proper  concern,  we  should  not 
naturally  expect  much  light  on  questions  of  ethnography.  It  is  therefore  the 
more  instructive  to  find  that  on  the  rare  occasions  on  which  he  does  digress 
into  such  matters,  his  knowledge  and  his  beliefs  not  only  agree  in  general 
with  normal  fifth  century  views  as  we  find  them  in  Herodotus,  but  also, 
where  they  diverge  from  these  at  all,  do  so  in  directions  which  foreshadow 
exactly  the  principal  new  departures  which  are  to  characterize  the  speculations 
of  the  fourth  century.  In  this,  in  fact,  as  in  much  else,  Thucydides  stands 
just  at  the  parting  of  the  ways. 

A.  First,  as  to  actual  Pelasgians.  Thucydides  gives  an  account  of  the 
natives  of  Mount  Athos,120  the  substance  of  which  we  have  already  noted  in 
discussing  the  evidence  of  Herodotus.     Its  main  points  are  as  follows: — 

-"  In   Attica   also,    alone,    do    we    find    the  I    have   collected  some  evidence  for  the  view 

'theoretical'  and   the   'actual'   or   rather   the  that  a  .similar  demand  of  the  Fericlean  Age  to 

orical      Pelasgian    side    by   side    in    the  know  5T  %v  alrfyv  there  was  a  Delian  League, 

same  context,  contrasted  as  Hellenizable  Attic  was  producing  very  similar  effects  in  a  reasoned 

aborigines      againsl       savage       Hellespontinu  retrospect  of  Mediterranean  sea-power. 
intruders.  '-'■'  iv.  109,  seep.  196  above. 

In  an  earlier  essay  {J. U.S.  xxvii.  81  II'.) 


(1)  The  promontory,  as  its  physical  position  would  suggest,  was  a 
gentium.  Its  population  included  wail's  from  all  the  principal  native  storks 
of  the  adjacent  mainland:  Edones  from  beyond  the  Strymon,  Bisaltae  and 
men  of  Creston  from  between  Strymon  and  Axius,  and  Pelasgians  t&v  /cat 
Arjuvov  7roTe  Kal  ' ABtjvcK;  Tvpai]vcbv  oltcrjo-avTOiv  :  a  phrase  which  sums  up 
all  the  main  features  of  tin-  Herodotean  diagnosis  of  ' actual  Pelasgians'  in 
the  North  Aegean,  except  that  he  makes  no  mention  of  their  kinsmen  on 
the  Hellespont, 

(2)  The  mention  of  Creston,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  important 
confirmation  of  the  manuscript  reading  of  Herodotus  i.  57. 

(3)  These  people  are  avfifiiKra  eOvq  fiapfidpwv  hiyXdiaawv.  If  fiap- 
/3<ipa)v,  one  of  their  languages  was  non-Hellenic.  What  their  '  second 
language  '  was,  is  not  stated  ;  but  we  may  fairly  infer  that  it  was  Greek :  for 
though  '  barbarian,'  these  people  are  in  the  heart  of  Chalcidice  ;  and,  as 
Thucydides  says,  Kal  rt  Kal  XuXklZlkov  hi  /3pa^v.  For  the  rest,  they 
presumably  retained  each  his  own  native  dialect  ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
Pelasgians  among  them  still  talked  Pelasgic,  exactly  as  Herodotus  says  of 
their  namesakes  up-country. 

(4)  Though  Herodotus  does  not  actually  say  that  Pelasgians  of  the 
district  of  Creston  were  among  the  colonizers  of  Attica,  he  does  say  so 
of  the  Hellespontine  Pelasgians;  and  these  he  connects  with  those  of  Creston 
by  the  significant  tie  of  a  common  dialect.  In  Thucydides,  either  wo 
have  additional  evidence  for  this  identification,  coming  from  a  fresh  quarter, 
and  from  a  writer  who  had  peculiar  opportunities  for  enquiring  locally  ; 
or  we  have  a  fresh  inference  from  the  data  supplied  by  Herodotus,  in 
which  case  we  must  infer  that  these  data  were  accepted  by  Thucydides 
as  trustworthy  so  far  as  they  went.  The  importance  of  this  latter  point 
is  obvious,  in  view  of  the  captious  attitude  which  Thucydides  usually 
adopts  in  dealing  with  his  predecessors;  and,  no  less,  in  view  of  modern 
attempts  to  show  that  Herodotus  in  this  passage  is  describing  CortOna 
in  Italy  ! 

(5)  Thucydides  has  also  one  small  piece  of  confirmatory  evidence  in  regard 
to  the  general  view  of  North  Aegean  ethnology,  the  history  of  which  we  are 
tracing.  It  is  he  who  is  our  earliest  authority  for  the  existence  of  those 
llurot  in  Thrace,  whom  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  compare  1S0  with  the 
Homeric  Zivnes  of  Lemnos.  Here  also  the  strength  of  the  evidence  lies 
in  Thucydides'  special  facilities  for  exact  knowledge  of  to.  eVl  ®patcr)<i; 
and,  with  this  admitted,  the  significance  of  the  reference,  in  Herodotus  vii. 
223,  to  a  town  ItVSosnear  Therma,  becomes  obvious  at  once. 

B.  The  Pehtsrjiun  Theory  of  early  Greece,  which  is  found  in  Thucyd 
presupposes    that    of   Herodotus,  but  differs    from    it   in   details,    which    all 
mark  advances  in  historical  method.1,1 

ii.  98,  cf.  p.  lSt  above.  lsl  »■  3- 

206  J.   L.   MYRES 

(1)  Thucydides  recognizes  that  the  '  theoretical '  Pelasgians  have  their 
name  from  some  single  tribe,  which  really  was  called  Pelasgian,  but  did 
not  constitute  the  whole  or  even  the  majority  of  the  pre-Hellenic  population 
of  Greece  ;  kOvrj  he  aXXa  re  /cal  to  UeXao-yi/cbv  eVi  irXelarov  cup'  iavTWv 
ttjv  eTrcovv/JLiav  irape-^eo-Qai.  We  may  fairly  infer  from  this  that  since 
the  time  of  Herodotus  a  still  wider  induction  has  been  attempted,  based 
upon  data  derived  from  those  parts  of  the  Greek  world  where  the  pre- 
Hellenic  population  had  been  previously  labelled  Carian,  Lelegian,  Caucon, 
and  the  like,  as  well  as  from  those  where  it  had  been  labelled  Pelasgic. 

(2)  The  Pelasgic  name  has  consequently  acquired  for  Thucydides  a 
definite  generic  and  connotative  value,  which  is  distinct  from  its  specific 
and  denotative  use  as  in  iv.  109.  For  the  first  time,  that  is,  a  Greek 
historical  writer  is  using  a  Pelasgian  hypothesis  consciously,  with  the 
knowledge  that  it  is  a  hypothesis,  and  not  a  summary  of  observed  or 
reported  facts. 

(3)  Whereas  Herodotus  rests  content  with  a  view  of  the  process  of 
Hellenization  which  is  expressed  intransitively 132  and  assumes  a  kind  of 
spontaneous  generation  133 — '  spec's  I  growed  '  as  Topsy  said — Thucydides 
is  conscious  that  to  'E\Xi)vik6v  has  arisen  by  actual  contact  of  'Pelasgian '  non- 
Hellenes  with  a  body,  however  small,  of  genuine  and  actual  "EXA/^e?  who 
had  the  higher  culture,  and  so  were  '  of  use  '  to  their  neighbours.  Of  course 
the  discovery  that  Hellenism  spreads  by  contagion  only  puts  the  problem  one 
stage  further  back  :  for  the  obvious  question  is  now,  how  to  account 
for  the  real  Hellenes.  But  it  is  a  clear  advance  to  have  formulated  the 
view  that  culture  does  thus  come  by  contagion,  /cad'  e/cacn-of?  fiev  ?;S?; 
ttj  ofiiXla  /xdXXov  KaXeladac  "EiXXijpas  ;  that  it  is  quality  which  tells,  not 
quantity;  that  'a  little  leaven'  may  work  'until  the  whole  is  leavened'; 
and  that,  like  the  Pelasgians,  the  Hellenes  have  come  to  have  their  name 
used  in  a  connotative  as  well  as  in  a  denotative  sense  ;  of  which  indeed 
we  have  seen  the  vague  beginnings  already,  in  Herodotus'  use  of  Danaus 
side  by  side  with  Xuthus.  But  we  find  no  express  formulation  of  it  till 
Thucydides  puts  '  Danaans,'  '  Argives,'  and  'Achaeans  'as  equivalent  Homeric 
names  for  those  'men  of  Phthia'  olirep  kcu  irpwToi  "EiXXrjves  rjaav. 

(4-)  Thucydides  makes  no  doubt  that  the  real  Hellenes  first  became 
appreciable  in  Phthiotis.  What  then  becomes,  for  him,  of  the  view  which  we 
have  seen  growing  up  in  post-Homeric  times  that  to  UeXao-yi/cbv  "Apyo? 
was  a  hotbed  of  Pelasgi  ?  Surely  here  if  anywhere  the  Hellenic  '  leaven  ' 
must  have  '  worked  '  early  and  effectually.  The  process  of  Hellenization 
was  gradual  and  lengthy,  as  he  admits;  ov  fievToc  ttoXXov  ye  "fcpbvov 
rjhvvaTo  Ka\  a-rraaiv  eKviK?)o-ai  :  but  missionary  enterprise,  like  charity,  surely 
begins  at  home. 

1  ■-  to  o0vo/j.a  /AeTffiaAf  .  .  .  tt)c  •/Xwooav  /act-  '  ;  Though    even    Herodotus     associates    in 

ef4.a8e  i.  57  :  rb  'EAA.  anoffx'ffdii' fiivrot  curb  rov  some   cases   the  crisis  of  Hellenization  with  a 

TleAacryiKou   i.    58  :  aireKpldr)    e/c   iraAatrtpov    rov  '  child  of  Helleil '  Slich  as  XuthllS. 
^at>$d.pov  tdveos  rb  'EAA.  i.  60. 


§    14. — The    Comparative   Method,  in  Thucydides  and   in    tTu    Early   Fourth 


In  a  neighbouring  passage1114  Thucydides  formulates — also,  I  believe 
for  the  first  time  in  literature — the  'comparative  method'  of  ethnological 
enquiry.  Ceteris  paribus,  he  argues,  it  is  permissible  to  infer  from  the 
present  state  of  a  backward  people  to  a  previous  state  of  an  advanced  people. 
It  is  possible  therefore  to  plot  out,  in  a  series,  all  known  varieties  of  '  Hellene,' 
from  the  most  cultured  to  the  least ;  and  as  Hellenism,  for  Thucydides, 
stands  for  the  highest  form  of  culture,  the  most  cultured  will  be  the  most 
truly  Hellenic,  and  the  least  cultured  will  show  the  most  purely  Pelasgian 

We,  who  have  passed  more  recently  through  a  similar  phase  of  method, 
know  only  too  well  the  corollary  which  a  looser  logic  may  allow  to  be  drawn 
from  such  a  series.  Granting,  as  everyone  did  grant,  including  Thucydides,  that 
early  Greece  had  been  the  scene  of  intense  'distress  of  nations' and  long- 
continued  [xeTavaardaeis,  it  was  only  too  easy  to  confuse  cultural  with 
geographical  advance;  and  to  argue  (as  the  students  of  "Aryan  languages'  argued 
repeatedly  in  the  last  century)  as  if  those  Greeks  who  had  '  progressed  least' 
in  culture  had  therefore  'advanced  least'  from  a  geographical  focus  of 
dispersion.  Now  if  the  zero  of  advancement  is  the  '  Pelasgian  '  stage  of 
culture,  the  starting  point  of  Greek  /jLeTapucrraai^  ought  to  be  the 
'Pelasgian  Home,'  to  adapt  a  familiar  expression.  Thus  all  that  was 
necessary,  in  order  to  discover  inductively  the  Pelasgian  Home,  was  to  arrange 
all  Greeks  in  their  cultural  order,  and  see  whereabouts  on  the  map  the  most 
backward  of  them  were  to  be  found.1343 

Now  in  the  early  fourth  century,  the  answer  to  this  question  was  easy  ; 
and  it  was  threefold.  (1)  Only  one  people  in  nearer  Greece  (apart  from 
districts  like  Messenia  and  Thessaly  which  had  neither  shaken  off  nor 
absorbed  their  '  conquerors '  since  the  late  ^Tavaardae^)  had  failed  to  adopt 
in  full  that  7ro\i?-system  which  alone — so  Thucydides,  and  Euripides,  and 
Plato  thought — could  produce  or  sustain  Hellenic  Man  :  only  one  people  in 
all  Peloponnese  answered  to  Thucydides' description  of  his  'actual'  Pelasgians, 
Kara  8e  [xiKpa  7ro\ia-/j.aTa  oiKovaiv  : 135  only  one  area  had  so  far  ignored  the 
trend  of  Hellenism  as  to  permit  its  sons,  in  that  clash  of  principles 
which  was  d^ioXoycoraTov  rwv  irplv,  to  fight  for  either  side  indifferently  : 1::0 
and  that  was  Arcadia  and  the  Arcadians. 

(2)  On  abroad  review  of  the  culture  of  Greece,  the  full  Hellenism  of 
Athens  and  the  Ionian  'colonies,'  of  Corinth,  of  Argos,  and  of  Delphi,  might  be 

m   i.  6.  PovAofxtvoi    to    ir\et<TTa    twv    irepl    avrovs.      To 

134:1  A  very  .similar  fallacy  confounds  advance  this    frame  of  mind  belong.--  also  the  Enhoran 

in  culture  with  progress  in  time.     Ephorus  is  a  theory  of  the   longevity   of   'primitive'   men 

conspicuous   instance  (Fr.  6  =  I)iod.  Sic.   1.  9)  (Fr.    24  =  Plin.    N.H.    7.    18)     'Ephorus 

irepl  irpwTuv  Si   twv  #  a  p  $  d  p  oi  v   5it£i/xev,  ovk  Art  '  anuos  vixisse.' 

a  p  x<*  i  o  t  *  p  ov  s  avrovs  ijyovfievoi  rwv  'E  \  A  t)-  u'  iv.  109. 

v  u  v  Kaddnep  "E(popos  ttpi}Kei',  ak\a  irpo%Lt\dzlv  136   vii 

208  J.  L.  MYRES 

figured  as  fading  away  gradually  north- westward,  into  a  region  where,  first,  as 
Thucydides  well  knew,  7r6\et<;  gave  place  to  a  life  Kara  /cco/ia?  aTeix^crTov;  in 
Aetolia,  and  where  even  hoplite  armour  was  unknown,  as  in  Locris; 137  where, 
next,  Hellenic  speech  became  blundered  and  confused,  so  that  Demosthenes' 
army  had  need  of  interpreters,138  and  he  could  trust  to  his  Messenians  being 
taken  for  Peloponnesians  by  their  accent ;  where,  farther  afield,  Peloponnesian 
troops  feared  massacre  inro  twv  /3ap/3dpcov  kcu  iy^Oiarwv  'AfK^iXo^cov ; 139 
and  where,  behind  all,  and  on  the  extreme  edge  of  the  Hellenic  world,  lay 
the  rude  ritual,  and  the  immemorial  age,  of  the  oracle  of  Zeus  at  Dodona. 

(3)  On  a  still  broader  view  of  the  civilized  world,  the  march  of  culture 
was  still  more  clearly  seen  to  be  westward.  Danaus,140  Pelops,141  and 
Cadmus142  had  brought  'light  from  the  East'  to  Hellenic  lands;  '  Hellen 
and  his  sons'143  had  spread  their  own  light  not  only  to  Dodona,  but  also  to 
Magna  Graecia  and  to  Sicily.  But  round  these  western  outposts  also  lay  a 
penumbra  of  barbarism,  and  beyond,  a  great  expanse  of  peoples  who,  like  the 
'theoretical'  Pelasgians  of  Greece,144  €7rayop,evcov  avrov?  eV  &><£e\/a, 
Kad'  eKticrTovs  [xev  ijSij  rfj  6/xi\ca  /udWov  were  becoming  severally  confronted 
with  Hellenic  culture,  whose  receptivity  of  things  Hellenic  was  remarkable, 
whose  cults  and  legends  bore  strong  resemblance  to  the  ruder  phases  of 
Hellenic  religion;  who  continued  to  practise  a  'Lesbian  rule'  in  their 
architecture,  which  recalled  the  primaeval  citadels  and  terrace-walls — the 
UeXaayitcd  relxv — of  old  Greece ;  and  whose  coasts  were  still  infested  by 
the  lawless  pirates  whose  name  in  the  Aegean  was  already  thrice  associated 
with  the  Pelasgian,145  and  who  had  made  the  Lower  Sea  '  Tyrrhenian  '  for 
good  and  all.  Italy  and  the  West  were  rapidly  being  involved  in  an  enlarged 
Pelasgian  Theory.14"'-' 

What  precedes  is,  I  believe,  legitimate  inference  as  to  the  probable 
course  of  speculation,  from  the  position  taken  up  by  Herodotus,  along  the  lines 
which  are  suggested  by  the  indications  of  advancing  method  in  Thucydides  ; 
and  it  accords  with  the  actual  extensions  which  Pelasgian  theory  received 
during  the  next  generation.  A  crucial  instance  will  make  the  situation  clearer. 

i:J7  iii.  94,  96,  cf.  112  (Amphilochia).  elaiv. 

IiS  The  Ophiones  and  Eurytanes  were  ayvw-  un  Hdt.  ii.  9S,  171,  182,  vii.  94. 

aroraroi  yAuxrcrav,  i<a\   LO/j.o(pdyoi  elai'v,   ws  \4ye-  141   Hdt.  vii.  8,  11. 

rat.     Time.    iii.     94.     The   Messenians  lie  de-  u-  Hdt.  ii.  44-49,  iv.  147,  v.  57-8. 

Clibes  as   Awpida     re   yAwaaav    livras  Kal    rots  u:;   Hdt.  i.  56,  60.      Thiie.  i.    3. 

■7rpo<pv\a£i  Trln-Tiv  irapexo/JLii'ovs.    iii.   112.  m  Thuc.  i.  3. 

:"  iii.   112.       Of  these  same  Amphilochians  Ui  Hdt.  i.  57.    Soph.  Fr.  256.    Time.  iv.  109. 

Hellenization  '  is  predieated  (for  the  first  time  145a  The  first  traces  of  this  lie  very  far  back. 

I   think  in  Greek  literature;  in  the  definitely  As  early  as  Pherecydes  (if  it  be  the  fifth  cen- 

linguistic    sense:    ko.\    IWrivtaQvaav   t\)v    vvv  tury  author  of  that  name)  Peueetius  and  Oeno- 

yXoxrarav   to't€    irpSnov  virb    rwv    ' ' paKiunHiv  trus    already    connt    as  children   ol    Arcadian 

^vvoiKticravTcev,  ol  5«  &A\oi  'Afj.<piAoxoi  t3dpf3apot  Lycaon. 


^  15. — Ephori  j. 

If  there  is  one  writer  who  represents  for  us  the  characteristics,  good  or 
had,  which  distinguish  fourth  century  historians  from  fifth,  it  is  Ephorus  of 
Oumae.  The  pupil  of  Isocrates,  he  was  brought  up  in  the  laxest  sect  of  the 
pijropes ;  and  the  fragments  which  we  have  of  his  work  show  how  in- 
dustriously he  improved  on  the  historical  method  of  his  master.  Not  only 
was  his  work  on  the  early  age  of  Greece  the  first  and  the  most  copious  of 
the  fourth  century  redactions,  but  it  has  been  shown  by  more  than  one 
modern  writer  practically  to  have  held  the  field  until  far  on  into  the 
Alexandrine  Age  ;  to  have  been  a  standard  book  of  reference  for  Polybius, 
and  to  have  supplied  Diodorus  with  almost  the  whole  framework  of  his 
history  for  this  period.  Strabo,  too,  quotes  him  repeatedly  on  points  of  early 

It  is  from  Strabo  that  we  learn,  among  other  points,  that  Ephorus  had  a 
Pelasgian  theory  of  his  own.  In  the  well-known  passage  146  in  which  Strabo 
summarizes  the  views  which  had  been  held  by  Greek  writers  on  this  matter, 
a  large  proportion  of  the  more  important  data  are  assigned  to  Ephorus  by 
name  ;  and  the  whole  of  the  Homeric  evidence  is  marshalled  in  a  form  which 
makes  it  highly  probable  that  we  have  here  an  abridgement  of  Ephoran 
commentary  :  for  phrases  characteristic  of  the  Ephoran  theory  recur,  as  we 
shall  see,  throughout  it,  This  theory  of  Ephorus  may  be  summed  up  in  a 
sentence.  The  Pelasgians  originated  in  Arcadia  and  nowhere  else  ;  and  sp 
from  thence,  all  over  Greece  and  beyond,  as  military  conquerors  and  colonists,  at 
a  -period  which  can  be  dated  approximately. 

Strabo  says  that  Ephorus  got  this  idea  from  Hesiod  ;  and  quotes  the 
actual  passage.147  Now  we  have  seen  already  that  this  is  the  only  evidence 
preserved  to  us,  down  to  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  which  expressly  con- 
nects Pelasgians  with  Arcadia;  that  it  gives  an  eponymous  Pelasgus  ;  that 
it  not  merely  introduces  a  factor  which  is  out  of  accord  with  the  Homeric 
data,  but  had  already  set  people  thinking  how  to  explain  and  justify  a 
Pelasgian  Arcadia;  and  that  it  had  thus  been  the  source  of  the  temptation 
to  transfer  the  phrase  YleXaaytKov  "Apyos  from  the  Thessalian  to  the 
Peloponnesian  Argos,  with  the  disastrous  results  which  we  have  seen. 

The  'Arcadian  theory'  of  Ephorus  is  introduced,  in  fact,  in  contrast  to  what 
Strabo  regards  as  the  popular  theory  {opuoXoyovat  d-navTes  a-^ehov  ti)  which 
made  the  Pelasgians  dpyalov  rt  cpvXov  Kara  tijv  'EXXdBa  tt  a  a  a  v 
eirnroXdcrav  teal  p,dXiara  tt  a  p  a  rot?  AioXeucri  to??  Kara 
(-)  e  a  a  aX  la  v.  This  theory,  as  we  have  seen,  was  current  from  the  end 
of  the  sixth  century  to  the  days  of  Herodotus,  and  was  based  partly  on  an 
imaginative  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the  Catalogue,  partly  on  the 
discovery   of  the  place-name   UeXaayiwTis.      But  it  sank  into  very  minor 

140  Strabo,  221.  I.v  saon  :  see  p.  lv,'>  above. 

117  Fr.  68,  in  which  Pelasgus  is  the  father  of 
U.S. — VOL.    XXVII.  P 

210  J.  L.  MYRES 

importance  in  Herodotus  and  Thucydides,  who  both  tend  to  regard  Thessaly 
as  the  starting  point  rather  of  Hellenes  than  of  Pelasgians.  We  must  infer 
however  from  Strabo's  words,  that  after  the  eclipse  of  Herodotean  history  this 
'  Thessalian  theory '  revived  ;  and  this  is  indeed  abundantly  clear  from  the 
writers  of  the  period  between  Ephorus  and  Strabo  himself.  We  may  fairly 
infer,  meanwhile,  that  Ephorus  did  not  hold  this  theory,  or  regard  the  Pelasgians 
as  the  generic  aborigines  of  Greece ;  and  that  in  particular  he  opposed  the 
'  current  view  '  that  either  the  UeXaayi/cbv  "Apyo?,  or  the  YleXao-yLWTis,  or  the 
Xdpiaa  of  Thessaly  were  among  their  primary  abodes. 

Next,  Strabo's  argument  treats  the  Homeric  passages  similarly,  but  more 
explicitly:  Kal  yap  tP/s  Kpr]TT)<;  enrol  kol  yeyovacrw,  w?  cpacnv  "Ofujpos, 
quoting  Odyssey  19.  177  ff.  But  Homer  does  not  say  that  the  Pelasgians  of 
Crete  eiroiKOL  yeyovacriv,  and  though,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  very  probable  that 
they  did '  come  to  reside  in  addition  to  '  its  other  inhabitants, — ; fas  est  et  ah  hoste 
doeeri — the  Odyssey  gives  no  direct  support  to  this  view.  The  phrase  eirotKot 
yeyovaaiv  in  fact,  shows  that  what  Strabo  is  giving  us  is  somebody's 
explanation  of  how  Pelasgians  came  to  be  in  Crete  at  all :  namely  that  they 
were  intruders  here,  just  as  they  were  everywhere  else  but  in  Arcadia.  Who 
was  this  somebody  ? 

Further  evidence  follows,  about  the  UeXaayiKov  "Apyo?  of  Iliad  2.  081  : 
Kal  to  Tlekacryucov  "Apyo?  i)  (derraXia  Xiyerai.  This  also  is  not  true,  at  all 
events  in  the  text  of  Homer  which  has  come  down  to  us.  First,  Homer 
never  mentions  Thessaly  by  name  at  all.  Next,  as  we  have  seen  already, 
the  Homeric  phrase  to  UeXaayiKov  "Apyo?,  refers  only  to  that  part  of 
'  Thessaly '  which  includes  Halus,  Alope,  Trachis,  Phthia,  and  '  Hellas '  in  the 
narrowest  sense  :  it  is  the  country  of  the  Myrmidons,  and  the  kingdom  of 
Achilles ;  and  it  does  not  include  even  places  like  Phylace  and  Pyrasus,148  much 
less  the  head  of  the  Pagasaean  gulf,  or  the  country  round  Tricca  or  Larisa. 
This  Thessaly,  in  fact,  winch,  as  Strabo  goes  on,  includes  to  fieTagv  twv 
ifJi[3o\o)v  tov  Yirjveiov  Kal  TOiv  %eppuO"KvXwv  e<w?  rfjq  opeivf)?  Trj<;  KaTa  Yllvhov 
is  the  Thessaly,  not  of  Homer,  but  rather  of  Aeschylus ;  and  the  reason 
why  it  is  either  '  Pelasgian  '  or  '  Argos '  is  the  same  also  as  in  Aeschylus ; — 8ia 
to  i  7r  a  p  %  a  l  TOiv  TOTiwv  tovtwv  tovs  UeXaayov^.  It  is  an  iirap^ia,  an 
'  annexation'  of  the  Pelasgians,  not  their  original  home. 

Here,  again,  as  in  the  previous  instance,  what  Strabo  is  reporting  is 
somebody's  views  about  Homer,  and  about  Aeschylus  also ;  and  this  somebody 
has  catch-words  of  his  own,  eiroucoi,  iirdp^ai,  arising  from  his  theory  and  be- 
traying it  whenever  they  recur. 

A  few  lines  below,  Strabo  refers  again  to  Ephorus  by  name,  ascribing  to 
him  the  use  of  YIe\ao~y£a  as  a  name  for  Peloponnese.  From  this,  we  may  be 
pretty  sure  that  Ephorus  also,  like  that  early  fifth  century  school  of  logo- 
graphers  which  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  ignore,  took  the  phrase  11  eXaayiKou 
"A.0709  as  referring  primarily  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos,  adjacent  to 
'  Pelasgian '  Arcadia ;  and  as  referring    only    secondarily    to    the    Thessalian 

143  II.  2.  695. 


district.  If  so,  Thessaly  was  for  Ephorus,  as  for  our  anonymous  'some- 
body,' merely  an  'eparchy  '  of  the  Pelasgians  of  Arcadia. 

This  impression  is  confirmed  by  the  words  which  Strabo  adds  next,  tcai 
EvpnriSi)?  iv  'Ap^eXdco  cf»)a\v  on  Aavaos  6  TrevTijKoura  duyarepwv  -rrcmjp 
came  to  Argos  and  gave  the  Danaan  name  to  the  Ue\acryia)Ta<i  oivop,ao-p.evov<; 
to  7rptV.148a  This  is  good  fifth  century  belief,  for  we  have  it  almost  verbatim 
in  Herodotus.141'  It  refers  of  course  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos,  but  it  is 
noteworthy  that  both  Herodotus  and  Euripides  make  use  of  the  peculiar  ethnic 
Ue\aayio)n]<;,  -wtk>,  which  only  occurs  otherwise,  in  fifth  century  literature, 
as  the  name  of  a  Thessalian  rerpap^a  ;  and  this  passage  is  in  an  excerpt 
from  Hellanicus.  But  why  bring  in  Euripides  and  Aeschylus  in  the  middle  of 
this  discussion  of  Homer?  Clearly  because,  not  Strabo,  but  the  anonymous 
'somebody,'  whose  views  are  being  traced  in  contrast  with  Homer,  as  with 
the  airavTe?  and  iroWoi  above,  was  concerned  to  claim  their  support. 
And  if  so,  this  somebody  must  have  been  at  work  not  earlier  than  the  date  of 
the  Archelaus  of  Euripides.     This  limits  the  range  of  our  enquiry  a  good  deal. 

Similarly,  Strabo  goes  on,  in  regard  to  Dodona  :  top  8e  At'a  rov  AwSovaiov 
avrbs  6  7roi?7T?;?  6  vo  fidget  Ylekaayixov  (quoting  Iliad  1G.  233)  .  .  .  iroXXol  he 
/cat  to,  WireipoiTiKa  effvij  HeXaayiKa  elp^Kaaw.  Here  again  the  phrase 
auras  6  7roi7]T7j<i  ovopui^i  has  all  the  look  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of 
'somebody'  to  claim  the  reluctant  Homer  and  the  others  who  called  the  Wild 
West  '  Pelasgic  '  as  supporters  of  his  theory  that  the  Pelasgian  hegemony,  more 
or  less  forcible  in  its  extension,  had  reached  as  far  as  Dodona,  if  not  even  into 
Epirus — &><?  Kal  fie%pi  hevpo  eirap^dvTw  v — and  out  comes  the  catchword 
again.  Now  this  exactly  accords  with  the  known  views  of  Ephorus  about 
Dodona:  for  Strabo  says  of  Dodona  in  another  context150  can  h\  co?  ^aiv 
vE0opo9,  TleXaayoiv  Xh  p  v  [xa.  Zeus  of  Dodona,  that  is,  is  HeXaaytKos  per  se 
and  Aa)8(i)valo<;  per  acciclens  :  as  fine  a  rhetorical  inversion  of  the  Homeric 
phrase  as  could  well  be  devised. 

By  this  time,  I  think  it  will  be  clear  that  the  anonymous  fourth  century 
'  somebody,'  whose  views  we  have  been  tracing  in  this  passage,  is  none  other 
than  Ephorus  himself;  and  that  what  Strabo  is  giving  us  is  a  detailed  analysis 
of  the  Pelasgian  theory  of  that  writer,  quoting  him  by  name  only  wheu  his 
views  diverge  from  those  which  were  orthodox  in  Strabo'stime — which  is  very 
seldom — and  quoting  authors  earlier  than  Ephorus  only  when  their  testimony 
is  either  of  crucial  value,  or  had  required  special  ingenuity  to  make  it 
'  fit  in  '  with  the  theory. 

We  begin  also,  I  think,  to  see  the  connexion  between  the  curious  ami 
detailed  commentary  on  the  Homeric  evidence,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Statement  which  follows  immediately,  that  the  ancient  author  who  really  best 
supported  the  Ephoran  theory,  ami  indeed  suggested  it  to  Ephorus,  was 
Hesiod.  It  was  indeed  a  choice  between  irreconcilables.  The  learned  world 
from  Acusilaus   to  Thucydides  had  expended  itself  in  constructing  theories 

l48a  Fi.  227  :  already  noted  above,  p.  191.  I50  Strabo,  327.       The  dependence  of  this  mi 

u''  ii.  171.  the  Hesiodic  neKacryHy  ibpavov  is  obvious. 

p  2 

212  J.  L.  MYRES 

about  the  Pelasgians  which  would  fit  the  Homeric  evidence  as  they  under- 
stood it ;  but  one  group  of  early  passages  had  stood  out,  and  could  not  be 
made  to  fit.  These  were  the  statement  of  Hesiod  that  a  personal  and  there- 
fore primeval  Pelasgus  was  the  father  of  Lycaon  of  Arcadia,  and  the 
conformable  witness  of  Asius  that  Pelasgus  was  Earthborn  and  the  First  Man. 
Pherecydes,  on  the  other  hand,  had  collected  round  the  passage  of  Hesiod  a 
mass  of  local  genealogies  which  went  back  to  Lycaon ;  and  he  had  probably 
been  led  to  connect  with  these  Arcadian  genealogies  the  barbarous  North- 
west round  Dodona,  and  places  as  far  beyond  as  Peucetia  and  Oenotria.  Mean- 
while Acusilaus  and  Hellanicus  had  tried  to  reconcile  the  Homeric  and  the 
Hesiodic  schools,  by  applying  to  the  Peloponnesian  Argos,  with  its  citadel 
Larisa,  the  Homeric  phrase  about  to  HeXaayiKov  "Apyos  in  Thessaly,  and  also 
the  Homeric  statement  that  some  Pelasgians  (who  however  had  nothing  to 
do  with  to  HeXaayi/cov  "A/r/o?)  dwelt  round  a  place  called  Larisa.  The 
tragedians  belong  wholly  to  this  popular  syncretistic  school.  Herodotus  and 
Thucydides,  on  the  other  hand,  use  mainly  Homeric  data,  but  supplement 
these  by  fresh  search  for  objective  fact,  and  by  new  methods  of  interpretation. 
But  now  the  reaction  from  anthropology,  which  Thucydides  had  foreseen, 
has  come ;  and  it  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the  methods  of  fourth  century 
rhetoric,  and  with  the  known  bent  of  his  own  genius,  that  Ephorus  should 
nppear  in  due  season  with  the  mission  to  construct  irpo^  to  irapa-^prjpa 
dicoveiv  a  completely  inverted  pyramid,  resting  its  slender  apex  on  the  one 
outstanding  passage  about  a  personal  Pelasgus  in  Arcadia,  and  incorporating 
the  Homeric  passages,  somewdiat  unsuccessfully,  very  near  the  broad  end 
of  the  structure. 

With  this  clue  in  mind,  the  rest  of  the  passage  of  Strabo  is  instructive 
reading.  The  remaining  passage  of  Homer,  about  the  '  actual '  Pelasgians 
among  the  allies  of  Priam,151  is  dismissed  in  a  fashion  as  brief  as  it  is  charac- 
teristic: kcu  Tot9  iv  Tfj  TpeoaSi  K.iX.L^iv'Op.^po'i  elpi]/ce  Tou?  o/xopovq  UeXaayoix;. 
Now  this,  once  more,  is  simply  not  true,  unless  the  Homeric  text  has  suffered 
grievously  since  Strabo's  time.  Moreover,  if  it  were,  it  would  make  Homer 
group  with  the  Pelasgians  just  those  allies  of  Priam  who  are  least  'at  home  ' 
in  their  Homeric  position  on  the  map,  when  compared  with  the  historical 
Oilicians ;  and  so  would  afford  the  plainest  suggestion  of  to  TroXvirXavriTov}^ 

That  the  Aeschylean  theory,  too  (however  well  it  suited  Ephorus  in 
Thessaly),  needed  amendment  in  Pelopounese,  is  clear  from  the  adversative 
clause  which  follows.  AlaxvXo<;  he  i/c  tov  rrepl  ^lv/c7]vas"Apyov<;  cprjalv  iv 
'IfceTioi  /cal  Aavaiai  to  yivo<;  avTOiv  xa\  ttjv  YleXoirovvria~ov  Se  UeXacrytav 
4>r}alv"E<f)opo<i  KXijOfjvai;  and  then  follows  the  quotation,  already  noteil,  from 
Euripides.  Aeschylus,  that  is,  was  in  error  in  supposing  that  it  was  because 
the  Peloponnesian  Argos  was  HeXaayt/cov  that  Peloponnese  was  called 
YleXaayia ;  and  Ephorus  has  set  him  right.  For  it  is  not  merely  the  XleXaayi- 
kov  "Apyo?  of   Argolis,   but    Peloponnese  as  a   whole,  which  on   his    theory 

II.  '1.  843.  that  of  Herodotus.     In  the  fifth  century  it  is 

1,1:1  We  may  note  in  passing  the  marked  anti-       the   Dorian    Hellenes  who    are  the    migratory 
between   the  ethnology  of  Ej>horus  ami       i-ironcm  of  Greece,  Tr<>\vnAavr)Tot  Kapra.  (i.  56). 


acquired  the  name  UeXaayia ;  and  it  acquire!  it,  as  we  have  seen,  not  in 
pre-Danaandays  from  the  Argive  YleXao-yo?  of  Aeschylus— wide  reachii 
h\<  eirapxiat  were — but  from  the  Pelasgian  arpancoriKOL  of  Arcadia. 

§  15. — Tht  Successors  of  Ephooms. 

Two  classes  of  data,  it  will  be  observed,  have  evaded,  hitherto,  the  wide- 
spread net  of  the  new  'Arcadian  Theory'  :  they  will  have  to  form  the  very 
cornice  of  the  inverted  pyramid  ;  and  they  are  just  the  data  which  had  most 
contributed  in  the  fifth  century  to  throw  fresh  light  on  the  realism  of  the 
Homeric  evidence.  We  have  not,  in  fact,  had  a  word,  as  yet,  either  about 
Lemnos  and  Imbros,  or  about  Attica. 

Strain,  goes  on  however  (with  an  adversative  consturction  once  more) 
'AvTirc\ei8>i<;  Be  irpcoTOV?  cprjaiv  avrovs  to.  7repl  Aijfivov  ku\  "lp,/3pov  fCTicrai, 
xal  Si)  tovtcov  nra?  Kai  fiCTU  Tvpptjvou  Tou  "Atuo?  ei?  Ttjv  'IraXlav  a-vvapai. 
Now  it  is  not  very  likely  that  any  of  Anticleides'  writings  were  extant  early 
enough  to  be  of  use  to  Ephorus  ;  and  Philochorus,  the  Atthidographer  who  is 
particularly  responsible  for  the  speculation  about  the  UeXaayol-UeXapyoi 
which  Strabo  quotes  next,  is  even  later  still.  It  follows  that  what  Strabo 
is  doing  now,  is  to  supplement  and  develope  the  theory  of  Ephorus  from  the 
works  of  his  immediate  successors.  In  both  cases  the  Pelasgians  are  repre- 
sented not  as  aborigines  but  as  immigrants  ;  but  the  verbs  are  no  longer 
eiroiKeh'  and  iirap^ai,  but  fCTicrai  and  kirKpoirav.  'How  exactly  the  fact  of 
these  Pelasgian  settlements  was  worked  into  the  general  structure  of  the 
theory,  there  is  nothing  in  this  passage  to  show  ;  but  the  silence  of  Strabo  as 
to  Ephorus,  and  his  use  of  later  writers  to  supplement  his  theory  on  these 
two  points,  certainly  suggest  that  a  difficulty  had  been  felt.  In  the  case  of 
Athens  the  problem  was  simplified  in  advance  for  Ephorus  by  the  circumstance 
that,  as  Herodotus  observed,  the  Athenians,  whatever  their  origin,  were  so 
thoroughly  Hellenized  as  to  be  reckoned  Toiat,  irpwroiat  \eyop.evoiai  eivai 
'EXXrjvcov  <ro<f)Lr}v,152  and  therefore  furthest  removed  from  the  simplicity  and 
folly  of  barbarians.  If,  that  is,  the  theory  of  Ephorus  arose  as  a  false  corollaiy 
from  a  cultural  classification  of  extant  Greeks,  such  as  was  contemplated  in 
the  time  of  Thucydides,  the  Athenians  must  at  once  have  fallen  out  of  the 
list  of  possible  candidates  for  genuine  Pelasgian  ancestry  ;  and  if  so,  the  stories 
in  Hecatanis  and  Herodotus  about  their  dealings  with  Pelasgian  irXain^ai 
would  come  in  as  proof  of  the  early  date  of  Attica's  conversion  to  Hellenism. 
The  philological  speculations  of  Philochorus  about  UeXaayol-lleXapyoi  rest  on 
inadequate  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Attic  dialect.  But,  whatever  their 
validity,  they  are  incompatible  with  any  theory  which  did  not  reject  or  more 
probably  ignore)  the  whole  of  the  Herodotean  treatment  of  the  'aboriginal  ' 
Pelasgians  of  Attica,  and  lay  stress  solely  on  the  Herodotean  admission  that 
certain  Pelasgians  'came  and  went'  between  Attica  and  Lemnos. 

'"-  lhlt.  i.  60. 

214  J.  L.  MYRES 

In  the  case  of  Lemnos  we  have  further  evidence  of  the  fourth  century 
treatment  of  Homer.  Homeric  proof  of  the  late  arrival  of  the  Pelasgians  in 
Lemnos  existed  indeed,  though  only  of  a  negative  kind,  and  so  far  Anticleides 
was  justified  in  asserting  that  the  Pelasgians  were  not  aborigines  but  colonists. 
But  in  laying  stress  on  the  negative  evidence,  he  ignored  the  positive 
testimony  of  the  Iliad  to  a  jore-Pelasgian  ktI<ti<;  in  Lemnos;  and  it  was  only 
by  so  ignoring  it  that  he  was  able  to  state  ir  p  cot  o  v  9  .  .  .  aurou?  rd  irepl 
\i)p.vov  /cal   Ififtpop  KTLcrai. 

§   16. — Pelasgians  and  Tyrrhenians. 

Strabo's  citation  from  Anticleides  introduces  another  new  feature,  when 
it  attributes  to  Pelasgians  of  Lemnos  and  Imbros  a  share  in  the  foundation  of 
Etruria.  Attempts  at  an  explanation  of  the  western  Tyrrhenians  by  means 
of  a  Pelasgian  theory  of  the  Aegean  go  back,  as  we  shall  see,  at  least  as  far  as 
Hellauicus ;  and  both  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  mention  'actual'  examples 
of  the  two  peoples  in  an  association  so  close  as  to  border  on  identity.  But 
the  statement  of  Anticleides  is,  I  believe,  the  earliest  which  connects  the 
'  actual'  Tyrrhenians  of  Etruria  with  any  part  of  the  Aegean  where  '  actual ' 
Pelasgians  existed  in  historic  times.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  I  have 
reserved  till  now  an  examination  of  the  literary  evidence  about  the 
Tyrrhenians  by  the  same  method  of  criticism  to  which  I  have  confined  myself 
in  the  preceding  sections.  If  it  leads  to  an  intelligible  result  in  this  case 
also,  I  think  I  may  claim  this  as  some  confirmation  both  of  my  previous 
results  and  of  the  method  itself. 

Considering  how  much  has  been  written  about  the  Tyrrhenians  and  how 
large  a  place  they  filled  on  the  Greek  horizon,  it  is  almost  surprising  to  find 
how  little  early  evidence  about  them  has  survived  in  Greek  literature. 
Homer  has  no  mention  of  Tyrrhenians  at  all ;  and  the  isolated  passage  in 
Hesiod's  Thcogonia  (1.  1016)  is  suspect.  In  fact  the  only  direct  reference  in 
literature  earlier  than  the  fifth  century,  is  that  in  the  Homeric  Hymn  to 
Dionysus  (1.  8).  Here  the  sea-pirates  who  kidnap  Dionysus,  and  are 
miraculously  punished  by  him,  are  introduced  without  comment  us  Tvpcnjvoi. 
But  the  Hymn  gives  no  internal  indication  of  the  date  or  place  of  the 
episode,  except  that  in  1.  28  Egypt  and  Cyprus  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Hyperboreans  on  the  other,  seem  to  lie  on  the  poet's  horizon  ;  and  this  does 
little  but  confirm  the  conclusion  suggested  by  style  and  language  that  the 
Hymn  may  belong  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  and  not  much  earlier. 
At  two  points  in  the  Hymn  there  may  be  traces  of  '  Tyrrhenian '  proper 
names ;  but  if  there  are,  they  are  hopelessly  corrupted.  It  is  possible,  but  is 
not  proved  by  anything  in  our  text,  that  the  Hymn  may  belong  to  the  same 
Cycladic  cult  of  Dionysus  as  the  fragmentary  Hymn  I,  with  its  allusions  to 
Naxos   and   Icaria;  I55S  but  it   is  also  possible,  as  the  unexplained    allusion 

153  The  earliest  version  of  tho  story  of  Dionysus,  which  implies  this    is  that  in  Apollod.  iii.  5.  3. 


to  the  bear1"'4  suggests,  that  it  may  belong  to  the  Brauronian  cult:  in 
which  case  this  Hymn  (or  the  legend  which  it  embo  lies)  may  be  the  source 
from  which  the  Tyrrhenian  nam.'  came  later  into  the  story  of  the  Pelasgian 

raids  round  Attica. 

Jn  the  fifth  century  four  distinct  stories  were  told  about  Tyrrhenians  m 

the  Aegean  basin.155 

(1)  Herodotus1'"1  and  Thucydides 157  are  agreed  that  Tyrrhenians  existed 
still,  in  the  fifth  century,  in  the  district  enclosed  between  Chalcidice,  the 
Strymon,  the  Axius,  and  the  inland  Paeonia  ;  and  that  .they  were  adjacent 
to  (Hdt.j,  if  not  actually  part  of  (Time),  the  Pelasgians  who  survived  in  that 
district.  Thucydides  adds,  as  we  have  seen,  that  they  retained  a  language  of 
their  own,  and  connects  them  with  certain  inhabitants  of  Lemnos  and  Attica 
who  seem  to  be  those  whom  Herodotus  calls  Pelasgians.  But  neither  writer 
connects  these  actual  fifth  century  Tyrrhenians  with  the  Tyrrhenians  of  the 

(2)  Sophocles  is  quoted159  as  having  used  the  double  phrase  kul 
'tvpavvolai  UeXaayok  of  a  part  (or  the  whole)  of  the  people  of  the  pre- 
historic realm  of  Inachus,  namely  the  Peloponnesiau  Argos.  But  we  have 
seen  in  the  case  of  the  word  YleXaayoi,  first,  that  its  application  to  the 
Peloponnesiau  Argos  results  from  misinterpretation  of  the  TleXaayucbv 
vAp7o9  of  Homer;  secondly,  that  already  in  the  time  of  Aeschylus  this 
prehistoric  realm  was  regarded  as  including  a  large  part  of  central  and 
northern  Greece,  and  particularly  the  Thessalian  Pelasgiotis.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Sophoclean  use  of  '  Tyrrhenian  '  to  preclude  this  interpretation 
of  the  passage,  and  there  is  no  suggestion  anywhere  that  there  either  were  or 
had  been  '  Tyrrhenians '  in  the  realm  of  Inachus  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
in  which  there  were  or  had  been  '  Pelasgians.'  The  passage  in  fact  is  only  ot 
interest  as  confirming  the  evidence  of  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  as  to  a 
growing  belief  in  the  fifth  century  that  the  '  Pelasgian''  and  the  '  Tyrrhenian 
names"  went  together '  in  some  way;  and,  as  we  shall  see  shortly,  by  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century  these  names  had  become  practically  inter- 

(3)  Hellanicus,160  though  he  does  not  expressly  mention  Tyrrhenians 
in  the  Aegean,  has  a  theory  about  the  origin  of  the  Tyrrhenians  in  the  West 
which  derives  them  from  his  Pelasgians  of  Thessaly.  These  Thessalian 
Pelasoians,  on    being   expelled    from    Thessaly  by  the    Hellenes     who.  for 

i  See  1.    16  and  Crusius'  note.  B  rodotus,  and  therewith  that  of  Thucydides 

155  In(    ■  tgedians'  use  of  TW«^       that    E.    Meyer  is   enabled   to  con 

5t0ck Epithet  of  £x«*  or  ««.r,  Aeieh.       He,  ennl    Tymner   un    B 

K 567,  Soph-  -4*.  17.  tegaischenM  «  i imcht/  Forschungen  i.  p.  SI. 

159  Fr.  256=Dionys  Hal.  i.  2d. 

i.  ui. 

,-  j'y    jog  M«  Fr.  l=Dionys.  Hal.  i.  28. 

i;>3  It    is  only  by  rewriting  the  passag<    of 

216  J.   L.  MYRES 

Hellanicus,  seem  to  have  been  immigrants  from  somewhere) 1C1  took  ship  and 
landed  in  Italy  eVt  S-rrivrjTi  Trorafxtp,  that  is,  on  the  Umbrian  coast  near 
Spina  ; 162  they  then  went  up  country  eU  Kporcova 

That  Hellanicus  however  had  himself  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  Tyrrhenian  name  in  Thessaly,  is  suggested  by  his  use  here  of  the  Pelasgian 
name  solely,  so  long  as  he  is  describing  events  in  Thessaly  or  indeed  anywhere 
outside  Italy  ;  and  by  his  statement  that  it  was  only  on  arrival  in  Italy  that 
the  Pelasonan  refugees  took  the  name  '  Tyrrhenian.'  i0:J  At  the  same  time  we 
must  note  that  elsewhere104  he  ascribes  a  settlement  at  Metaon  in  Lesbos  to 
one  MeTa?  Tvpprjvos  ;  and  as  most  of  the  Lesbian  towns  were  of  Thessalian 
origin  there  is  a  prima  facie  case  for  regarding  this  Tvppijvos  as  coming  from 
thence.165  He  might  however  have  been  a  Pelasgian  from  Lemnos  or  the 

Hellanicus  gives  elsewhere,  as  a  lower  limit  of  date  for  this  migration, 
the  third  generation  before  the  Trojan  war,  and  the  twenty-sixth  year  of 
Alcyone,  priestess  of  the  Argive  Heraeum  ;  and  Philistus,  a  little  later,106 
gives  the  same  date,  in  the  formula  '  eighty  years  before  the  Trojan  war.'  In 
both  cases  the  actual  date  in  question  is  that  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Sicels 
from  Italy  into  Sicily  ;  but  as  the  Ligurians,  who  according  to  Philistus 
expelled  them,  were  themselves  under  compulsion  from  '  Umbrians  and 
Pelasgians,'  the  presence  of  Pelasgians  in  or  near  Umbria  is  presumed  at  a 
date  not  later  than  the  Sicel  migration.  We  cannot  however  be  certain  that 
the  Pelasgians  who  landed  at  Spina  were  the  only  people  of  the  name  whom 
Philistus  (or  even  Hellanicus)  believed  to  be  at  that  time  in  Italy. 

(4;  About  the  Western  Tyrrhenians  however  Herodotus  has  a  quite 
different  story,  which  he  gives  on  Lydian  authority  1G7  :  namely  that  they  are 
of  the  same  origin  as  the  Lydians.  His  story  is  that  in  a  time  of  famine 
these  Lydian  Tyrrhenians  took  ship  and  '  after  passing  many  peoples' came 
to  the  'OfiftpLKOL  where  they  founded  cities  ;  and  there  they  live  still.     They 

161  The  story  added  by  Dionysius,  that  this  lanicus,  but  not  explicitly  so),  does  not  seem  to 

happened  in  the  days  of  Deucalion,  cannot   be  prove  Tyrrhenian,  or  Pelasgian,  or  even  Thes- 

traced  to  any  early  source.   The  nearest  analogy  salian  origin.     That  the  latter  view  at  all  events 

is  Herodotus'  statement  (i.  50)  that  in  the  day>  was    popularly  believed   later  is  confirmed   by 

icalion  the  Hellenes  oIksov  yrjv  t^v  *0»«tw  the   analogy   of  Ravenna.     But   even  a  Thes- 

and  in  the  time  of  his  grandson  Doras  migrated  salian  origin  does  not  prove  that  the  colonists 

to  the   Histiaeotis  below  Ossa  and  Olympus;  were    either  Tyrrhenians    or    Pelasgians,    and 

but  this  does  not  prove  that  in  the  intervening  Btrabo  (214),  who  is  our  authority  for  this,  has 

generation  they  occupied  the  intervening  terri-  chosen  to  describe  Spina  as  it6.\ai  5e  'e\\t\v\s 

tory,   though   Dionysius  very  likely  thought  it  iroAts  evtiotos,  which  is  bad  for  its   Pelasgian 

did.     Hesiod  {Cat.   fr.   11)  and   Pindar  (01.  9.  origin. 

64)  seem  to  have  regarded  Deucalion  as  king  of  1,;!  There  is  some  late  evidence  for  a  belief 

Opuntian  Locris,  or  at  least  of  Opus  ;  but  we  do  that  then    were   Pelasgian  settlers  in  Lesbos: 

not  know  how  early  it  was  discovered 'that  this  see  especially  Strabo,  221,   621,  Diod.   5.   Si, 

king  of  Opus  was  the  invader  of  Phthia.  Plin.  X.If.  5.31.  o9. 

;-  That    Spina     should     have     maintained  lliJ  Fr.  121  =  Steph.  Byz.  s.v.  Merawv. 

tributary  relations   with    Delphi  down  to  the  165  Dionys.  Hal.  i.  22. 

of  its  destruction,  as  is  stated  by  Dionysius  J,,';  Dionys.  Hal.  I.e.  —  fr.  2. 

(i.  17,  perhaps  also  on  the  authority  of  Hel-  ,li:  i.  94. 


got  their  name  from  their  leader  Tyrsenus,  who  was  son  of  Atys  and  conse- 
quently (i.  7)  brother  of  Lulus  the  efionymos  of  the  Lydians.    Here  the  chai 
of  name  suo-o-ests  the  same  conclusion  as  in  the   case  of   Hellanicus,  namely 
that  Herodotus  had  qo  evidence  before  him  of  a  Tyrrhenian  people  in  Lydia. 

(  h,  the  other  hand  a  dichotomy  of  the  Lydians,  such  as  his  story  presumes 
is  in  accordance  with  a  native  Lydian  tradition  of  fifth  century  date :  for 
Xanthus  the  Lydian 168  gives,  as  the  sons  of  Atys,  Lydus  and  Torebus  (or 
Torrhebus)  and  adds  that  the  languages  of  their  respective  descendants  stood 
to  one  another  as  Ionic  to  Doric,  that  is,  they  were  closely-kindred  dialects. 
Xanthos  however  gives  no  indication  of  a  Torrhebiau  emigration;  hut  he 
knows  of  a  town  Torrhaebus  in  Lydia.  Not  own  'Tyrrhenus'  bowever  is 
known  either  to  Herodotus  or  to  anyone  else.1'''. 

Another  point  is  perhaps  worth  noting',  to  complete  the  parallel  between 
the  accounts  of  Herodotus  and  Xanthus,  and  to  suggest  a  line  of  argument 
which  may  very  likely  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  the  former.  Hero- 
dotus introduces  his  account  of  the  Tyrrhenian  emigration  as  a  footnote  to 
the  Lydian  invention  of  vraiyvtai,  which  he  ascribes  to  the  Lydians,  on  Lydian 
authority,  in  a  passage  the  rest  of  which  is  remarkable  for  its  detailed 
knowledge  of  things  Lydian.17"  Now  we  do  not  know  enough  either  about 
Lydian  or  Tyrrhenian,  or  even  about  Hellenic  Traiyviat,  to  be  able  to  confirm 
or  to  dispute  Herodotus'  account  ;  but  we  may  fairly  assume  that  in  his  time 
there  was  actually  sufficient  similarity  between  these  pastimes,  to  uphold  such 
a  story;  and  further  that  such  similarity  between  Lydian  and  Tyrrhenian 
games  was  one  of  the  testimonia  to  the  story  of  the  Tyrrhenian  emigration— 
as  one  might  argue  from  the  games  of  New  England  or  Virginia  nowadays. 
So  that  it  becomes  important  to  note  that  in  Xanthus  also171  the  place 
Torrhebus  has  a  local  culture-hero  named  Carius,  who  is  inventor  artium,  and 
that  is  why  Lydian  music,  in  particular,  is  called  Torrhebian  :  for  here  we 
seem  to  have  another  phase  of  the  same  general  story  of  a  Lydian  or  Tor- 
rhebian culture-hero. 

It  is  by  this  time  fairly  clear  how  Herodotus  came  by  his  story,  at 
its  Lydian  end.  At  its  Italian  end  the  story  is  clearly  a  variant  of  that  of 
Hellanicus:  for  '  TTmbria '  in  Herodotus17-  extends  northwards  as  far  as  the 
foot  <>f  the  Alps,  and  so  includes  the  site  of  Spina.  Meanwhile  his  phrase, 
edvea  iroWa  Trapafxet^afMevovs,  looks  very  like  an  attempt  to  summarize  a 
long  series  of  data  as  to  'Tyrrhenian5  settlements,  or  attempted  settlements, 
on  the  route  between   Lydia  and  the  head  of  the  Adriatic. 

Summing  up  the  evidence  of  the  fifth  century  writers  we  reach  the 
following  presentation  of  the  fifth  century  view  of  the  Tyrrhenians;  and  we 

168    [.',.   i       DioilVS.  Hal.  i.  'JS.  l;"   i-   94  <paal  5e  avroi  AuSol    ical   Tas   naiyias 

"•:*  The    name    Tvppr)v6s    would    I"'    a    natural  Tas    vvv     ff(pi<Ti     t«     koi    "EWllfft    KaTeaTeurras 

'ethnic'  if  there  was  ever  a  place  called  Tyrrha,  £«ot«v   i&vprifia   yeviodai-    aua   5e    Tanas   re 

and    it   was  believed  in  quite    late  times  that  ^ei/peflJ^ai   ira^a    a<picn  \iyovat  xal  Tvpayvl-nv 

ili,!,    was   mi,  h   a   town  in  the  South    Lydian  ai-our/irar  »5e  irtpl  avrSu  xiynvres. 
district  of  Tonhcbia  (Et.   Mcuj.  s.v.  Tipawos)  1:1  Fr.     2,     summarized     by     N 

and  that  Gyges  came   from  thence.     Bui  this  Damascus, 
pvovi                  for  the  fifth  century  or  earlier.  '•"-  i\".  >'•'■ 

218  J.   L.   MYRES 

note  at  once  the  remarkable  likeness  between  its  main  features  and  those  of 
the  Pelasgian  theory  at  the  same  phase. 

First,  there  are  'actual'  Tyrrhenians  (1)  north  of  Chalcidice,  (2)  in 
Etruria  ;  but  no  fifth  century  writer  has  recorded  any  attempt  to  identify 

Secondly,  the  '  actual '  Tyrrhenians  of  Chalcidice  are  closely  associated 
with  '  actual '  Pelasgians  in  our  two  best  authorities. 

Thirdly,  speculation  has  been  at  work,  connecting,  on  the  one  hand  the 
'actual'  Tyrrhenians  of  Chalcidice  with  the  intrusive  Pelasgians  of  Lemnos 
and  Attica,  on  the  other  hand  the  '  actual'  Tyrrhenians  of  the  West  (1)  with 
'  theoretical '  Tyrrhenians  in  Lydia,  now  extinct,  (2)  with  '  theoretical ' 
Pelasgians  in  Thessaly,  also  extinct  now. 

Fourthly,  in  popular  belief,  represented  by  Sophoclean  Tragedy,  the 
name  '  Tyrrhenian',  again  in  the  closest  association  with 'Pelasgians'  has  got 
a  general  connotative  sense  of  '  pre-Hellenic  in  the  Aegean,'  which  exactly 
corresponds  with  the  behaviour  of  the  Tyrrhenian  individuals  whose  exploits 
have  come  down  to  us  in  our  one  epic  source,  the  Homeric  Hymn  to 

But  no  sooner  do  we  pass  from  the  fifth  century  into  the  fourth  than 
all  is  exaggeration  and  confusion. 

First,  as  we  should  expect,  the  connotative  use  of  '  Tyrrhenian '  to  mean 
'  violent  and  piratical '  crystallizes  into  a  definite  theory,  assigned  to  Ephorus 
by  name,  in  which  the  Tyrrhenians  play  almost  exactly  the  same  part  at  sea, 
as  has  been  assigned  to  the  Pelasgians  on  land.     The  crucial  passages  are : 

(1)  Strabo  410,  where  rCphorus  accounts  thus  for  the  lateness  of  Hellenic 
expansion  in  the  West,174  tovs  yap  7rp6repov  SeSiivai  ra  Xr)cni]pia  ra>v 
Tvppy]vwv  Kal  tt)v  o)p,oTy]Ta  rwv  ravri)  (3apj3dpu>v.  Here  the  Tyrrhenian  is 
the  type  of  Outland  barbarism,  as  the  Pelasgian  is  of  pre-Hellenic  barbarism 
in  the  Aegean. 

(2)  Strabo  477,  where  the  writer,  speaking  of  the  Cretans,  says  f.terd 
toi/9  Tvppi]vov<;  o't  /uudXiara  ihnooaav  ttjv  ku6'  i)/xa<;  OdXarrav,  ovrol  elaiv  ot 
hLahe^afxevoi  rd  Xyanjpia.  At  first  sight  it  is  tempting  to  take  this  as 
referring  to  the  Cretan  piracy  of  historic  times,  which  is  much  in  the  mind 
of  Strabo  himself.  But  if  the  ascription  to  Ephorus  is  correct,  this  is 
out  of  the  question,  for  the  Cretan  piracy  did  not  appear  to  be  serious 
till  after  the  age  of  Alexander.  Another  possible  interpretation  would 
be  to  regard  rd  Xyarrfpia — a  regular  Ephoran  catchword,  like  eiroiKOi  and 
e-rrdp^ai — as  the  victims'  expression  for  a  '  sea-power.'  But  there  is  no 
evidence  that  Ephorus   was  acquainted   with   the  Thalassocracy  List  which 

;  This  is  all  quite  independent  of  the  late  l7*  lie  assigns  the  foundation  of  the  western 

and  far  too  sweeping  generalization  of  Dionysius  Naxos  ami  Megara  to  the  fifteenth  generation 

(i.  25,  on  tli"  passage  of  Sophocles)*  Tupprivlas  after  tin'  Trojan  war  (1184  B.c.  [15x30=]450 

fxev    yap    Br)    uvoixa  rhv  XP')V0V   tKtlvov  kvh.  rrjv  =734  B.C.). 
'Ewdba  i\v. 


comes  to  us  through  Diodorus  ;  and  even  if  he  was,  it  cannot  be  argued  that 
he  described  as  Tyrrhenian  the  sea-power"5  which  the  List  calls  Pelasgian  : 
lor  the  sea-power  which  succeeds  it  is  not '  Cretan  '  in  the  List,  but '  Thracian. 
The  only  alternative  is  to  regard  the  'Cretan'  ^ar^pca  as  the  famous 
'  sea-power  of  Minus,'  and  to  regard  the  Tyrrhenian  Xrjarfjpia  as  the  Ephoran 
equivalent  for  what  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  know  as  the  « Carian 
sea-power  which  Minos  overthrew.1™  So,  whereas  in  the  A,-,an  this 
'Tyrrhenian'  sea-power  was  broken  by  Minos,  and  permitted  He lemc 
expansion  early,  in  the  West  Minos  tailed  as  Herodotus  knew,,  and  Hellenic 
expansion  tarried  till  the  fifteenth  generation  after  the  Trojan  W  ar. 

Secondly,  whereas  Hellanicus  had  made  his  Thessalian  Pelasgians  change 
their  aame  on  their  arrival  in  Italy,  and  so  leave  the  West  a  free  field 
for  Tyrrhenians,  the  fourth  century,  from  Philistus  onwards,  admits  unmodified 
Pelasgians  in  Italy.  In  Philistus'  account,  already  cited,1"  of  the  dis- 
possession of  Ligurians  and  Sicels  southward,  their  invaders  are  not 
Umbrians  and  Tyrrhenians,  as  we  should  expect  from  the  fifth  century 
evidence,  but  Umbrians  and  Pelasgians.  The  later  writers  carry  this  con- 
fusion further,  sometimes  identifying  Pelasgiau  and  Tyrrhenian,  sometimes 
distinguishing  them.  The  'Thessalian'  Ravenna,  for  example,  strengthens 
itself  against  '  Tyrrhenian  '  attack,  by  admitting  its  '  Umbrian'  neighbours.  '^ 
In  Southern  Campania,  beyond  the  Sarnus  R.  lie  elra  Tvpp^voi  km 
UeXaayoc,  fieTa  Tavra  hk  ^avvlrar  kul  ovrot  8'  e^eireaov  €K  tg>v  tottcov.  ' 
Diodorus,  in  fact,  was  probably  under  no  misapprehension  when  he  said 
that   'the   Greeks'    apply   the    name    'Tyrrhenian'    to    Latins,   Umbrians, 

and  Ausones  indifferently.180 

Thirdly,  the  weakness  of  the  evidence  which  in  Hellanicus'  story  connects 
the  Pelasgian  immigrants  from  Thessaly  with  the  Tyrrhenians  of  Emma,— 
and  perhaps  also  a  discrepancy  between  the  date  of  king  Nanas  of  Thessaly 
in  Hellanicus,  and  that  of  king  Atys  of  Lydia  in  Herodotus  and  m  the  few 
writers  such  as  TimaeuslSl  who  followed  him  in  this  matter,— seem  to 
have  led  later  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  West  there  were  two  movements 
of  colonization,  one  earlier  and  '  Pelasgian,'  the  other  later  and  'Tyrrhenian 
A  good  example  of  the  duplication  which  ensues  is  that  legend  ot  Caere,  ■ 
in  which  a  Thessalian-Pelasgian  in  the  town  speaks  Greek— x«^€— to 
a  '  Tyrrhenian  '  assailant,  and  is  understood  by  him.133  The  Pelasgian  emi- 
gration to  the   West  from   Thessalv,  moreover,   was  certain  sooner  or  later 

"a  Placed    by    Eusebius    (Jerome)    between  177  Fr.  2      Dion.  Hal.  i.  17. 

1056   and  Ml  B.C.  ;    and   by   myself  about   a  I78  Strabo,  "214. 

.  utury  later  [J. U.S.  xxvii,  pp.  88,  V26-7).  17S  Strabo,  '217. 

w  This  agrees  well  with  the  fourth  century  *    Foi  insl  in.  cssee  the  literature  ...  B 

date  for  the  spread  of  the   Hellenes  over  the  and  Reinach,  Zes  Celt*  d                              I 

Pelasgian  'eparchies'  of  the  mainland  :  for  Ion  du  Danube,  1894,  pp.  i  1  "• 

son  of  Xuthus    is   very    nearly   contemporary  Fr.  19. 

with  Theseus,  and  Theseus  is  one  generation  Strabo,  220. 

below  Minus   and   one   general                      tin  '«<  That    Caere,   or   rather    the    uurefonned 

Trojan  war.     llellen   therefore  was  fuur  genera-  Agylia,  had  like  Spina,   regular  relations  «ith 

tions  before  the  Trojan  war,  and  Xuthus  ;,nl  Delphi,    and    even    a    treasury   there,    pro 

Doru>  were  contemporaries  of  Minns  of  <  'i  notliing  as  I 


220  J.  L.  MYRES 

to  be  confused  with  the  far  earlier  movements  implied  in  the  genealogy 
which  Pherecydes  constructed  for  the  children  of  Lycaon  of  Arcadia.  One 
version  of  the  latter  brought  Oenotrians  from  Arcadia  to  Italy  as  its  first 
inhabitants,  and  a  kindred  version  (which  however  only  comes  to  us 
through  Dionysius,  and  is  not  assigned  to  Pherecydes  or  his  followers  by- 
name) sets  this  Arcadian  movement  as  far  back  as  the  seventeenth  gener- 
ation before  the  Trojan  War.  The  evidence  however  for  this  double-coloniz- 
ation is  all  later  than  the  fourth  century :183a  it  naturally  proves  nothing 
for  any  period  earlier  than  the  circumstances  which  called  the  theory 
itself  into  existence;  and  these  circumstances  are  indicated  very  clearly 
in  Dionysius'  own  version  of  the  story  of  the  Pelasgians  in  Italy,184  for 
part  of  which  he  claims  the  support  of  Hellauicus.  For  he  represents 
the  Thessalian  Pelasgians  of  Hellanicus  as  beino-  themselves  a  detachment 
of  the  militantPelasgians  of  Arcadia,  who  were  not  invented  till  a  century 
after  Hellanicus'  time ;  and  he  puts  their  arrival  back  six  generations 
before  the  days  of  Deucalion,  whereas  Hellanicus  had  kept  them  in  Thessaly 
until  the  invasion  of  the  Hellenes,  at  least  one  generation  after  Deucalion, 
and  ..»nly  three  generations  before  the  Trojan  War.  The  whole  story,  in  fact, 
as  viewed  by  Dionysius,  is  seen  through  the  spectacles  of  Ephorus ;  or  rather 
perhaps  of  some  follower  of  Ephorus  whose  aim  was  to  work  into  the  Ephoran 
theory  some  part  of  the  calculations  of  Pherecydes.18"' 

Fourthly,  the  Tyrrhenian  name  became  more  and  more  widely  applied  to 
the  Pelasgian  invaders  of  Lemnos,  Attica,  and  other  parts  of  the  Aegean. 
The  statement  of  Thucydides,  that  his  Tyrrhenian-Pelasgian  folk  in  Mt. 
Athos  were  akin  to  the  invaders  of  Lemnos,  lay  open  to  misconception  in 
proportion  as  the  word  '  Tyrrhenian  'gained  more  generic  vogue  ;  and  Ave  have 
already  seen  that  Hellanicus  had  placed  a  'Tyrrhenian'  colony  in  Lesbos,  over 
against  "AvravBpov  r>)v  UeXacryiSa.  There  was  some  excuse,  therefore,  for 
the  attempt  of  Anticleides  to  reconcile  the  accounts  given  by  Herodotus,  and 
by  Hellanicus,  of  the  western  Tyrrhenians,  by  causing  Pelasgians  from  Lemnos 
and  Imbros  (who  on  Thucydidean  authority  were  akin  to  the  Tyrrhenian- 
Pelasgians  of  Mt.  Athos)  to  join  Tijri  Ji<  '.mis,  son  of  Atys,and  his  men.  eOiea  ttoWci 
7rapa/jL€t\jra/u.€i'ov^,  as  Herodotus  says,  on  their  way  to  Tyrrhenia-in-the-West. 

But  it  is  quite  another  affair,  when  Ephorus  describes  the  Lemnians  as 
Tyrrhenians  without,  qualification  ;  I8°  or  when  Philochorus187  retells  the  story 

'"  '   I-  i-  -'  t  out  in  great  detail  by  Ridgeway,  to   Hesiod,   if  fragment  85  of  Pherecydes  was 

Early  Agt  oj  Greece  i.  pp.  231  II'.  extant  and  known  to  him. 

Dionys.  Hal.  i.  22.  lS6  Diod.  10.  19. 

'"     I  have  already  commented  (p.  187,  n.  11  lb7  Fr.  5.     We  have  already  had  two  e^peri- 

nn  the  doubt  which  must  exist  as  to  the  ■!  tte  of  ences  of  Philochorus  as  a  philologist  and  it  is 

i!i\    statement    attributed  to   Pherecydes,   and  in  the  very  next  fragment, fr.  6,  that  he  derives 

my  impressiou  that,  though  the  earliest  of  t  lie  the  name  of  the  Homeric  Series  from  <Tlveo6ai 

three  writers  of  this    name  was  a  \oyoypdcpus  with  refeicnce  to  this  same  raid.     But  in  this 

ami  probably  compiled  genealogies,  the  quota-  fragment  he  calls  the  raiders  Pelasgians.     The 

tions  themselves   betray    the   influence   of  the  Homeric  StVnes  however  as  we  have  seen,  have 

Ephor;                  and  may  lie  quite  late.     It  is  no  more  to  do  with  the  Pelasgians  than  they 

certainl}    remarkable    that    Ephorus    did    not  have  Avith  the  Tyrrhenians. 
acknowledge  his  debl   to  Pherecydes  as  well  as 


of  the  Pelasgian  raid  on  Attica  with  details  derived  from  Hecataeus  and 
Herodotus,  but  with  'Tyrrhenians'  substituted  for  Pelasgians  throughout, 
and  with  the  philological  moral  rvpavvos  el'p>]Tac  diro  twv  Tvpp^v^v  t6)v 
/3iai(ov  /cal  \r)<TTO)v  ij~  dp^i)?  .  .  .  Tvpptjvol  yap  oXiyov  riva  xpovov 
(KKi'icravTes  iv  t.u?  'AOquais  .  .  .  toWoI  pblv  avrcov  uttcoXovto  .  .  .  aWoi  ol 
(stccpvyovTes  Aijfivov  /cal  "\p,(3pov  wK^crav  .  .  .  and  then  returned  when  irapOevoi 
«pKTev6p.evai  rfj  6e<p  were  at  their  mercy  at  Brauron.  After  this  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Apollonius  of  Rhodes,188  followed  by  Plutarch189  and 
Polyaenus,190  should  have  described  as  'Tyrrhenians'  the  persecutors  of  the 
Minyans ;  that  Aristoxenus 191  should  describe  Pythagoras  as  a  'Tyrrhenian  ' 
from  Lemnos ;  that  Diogenes  Laertius1'-  should  describe  one  Mnesarchus  as 
Tvpprjvov  ovtcl  ko.\  yeros  twv  Anp,vov  kol  "\pj3pov  /cal  %/cvpov J^LKliardvTOJV 
Tuppijvwv  ;  or  finally  that  the  Lenmians  who  were  conquered  by  Miltiades 
should  rank,  for  Cornelius  Nepos,  as  Carians.193  Only  much  later  (with  the 
single  exception  of  one  passage  of  Charax)  does  the  revival  of  Herodotean 
authority  permit  Stephanus  (s.v.  'H^aio-r/a?),  Suidas,  and  Zenobius 
(s.v.  'Epfxwvetos  xi*PL<>)  to  recur  to  the  fifth  century  name  of  'Pelasgian.' 

The  mention  of  Scyros  is  particularly  instructive,  because  its  inhabitants 
had  been  noted  by  Thucydides  m  as  Dolopes,  of  a  well-known  mainland  stock 
of  ordinary  North-Greek  type.195  Ephorus  however  called  them  'Pelas- 
gians,' 196  as  we  might  almost  have  guessed,  seeing  they  are  e-rrotKoi  from 
North  Greece  ;  Scynmus  couples  them  with  the  men  of  Sciathos  as  He\aayoi, 
but  gives  them  a  quite  different  origin,  e'/c  ©pa/o??  Siaftdvres,  o>9  Ao'709  ;  l 
Nicolas  of  Damascus  calls  them  *  Pelasgians  and  Carians  ' 19S  and  Diogenes, 
as  we  have  seen,  couples  them  with  the  men  of  Lemnos  and  Imbros,  but  calls 
all  three  peoples  '  Tyrrhenian.' 

§   1/. — Conclusion. 

Anyone  who  has  followed  this  analysis  of  the  Greek  authorities  as  fai  as 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century  will  agree,  I  think,  that  there  is  not  much  to  be 
gained  by  classifving  the  unauthenticated  statements  of  the  writers  further 
down.  Anyone,  moreover,  who  is  familiar  with  those  statements,  will 
recognize  at  once  how  large  a  proportion  of  them  consists  in  direct  elaboration 
of  the  Homeric  and  Herodotean  connotative  view,  that  'Pelasgian'  meant 
pie-Hellenic'  in  much  the  same  sense  as  'British'  is  popularly  used  in 
England  for  'pre-Roman,'  or  '  Druidical'  for  '  pre-Christian  '  ;  and  how  large  a 
proportion  of  the  remainder  are  Te/xri  y>7  T°d  peydXov  heinrvov  E  cpo  p  o  v. 
Take  the  case  of  the  famous  Pelasgian  settlement  in  Rome.     There  is 

•   Argonautica  iv.  17ti0.  Pammon,  all  he  has  to  say  of  hint   is  that  he 

189  V-  ''''•  21,  Virt:  Mid.  8.  19°  vii.  49.  betrayed  a  Greek  anchorage  to  the  I'  :- 

>    |>.  1.         IK  viii.  l.  2.  196  Diodorus,  xi.  60. 

":  Milliades2.         lw  i.  98.  197  Scyranus,  615. 

1,J5  Hilt.     vii.     132,    is.'..     Though    he    lias  Steph.  Byz.  s.v.  %-tvpos. 

oi   osionin  vii.  1S3  to  mention  a  Scyrian  mimed 

222  J.   L.   MYRES 

an  obvious  but  anonymous  culture-hero;  so  he  is  Evander  (ev-av$p-o<;  =  rir 
I  onus)  and  of  Arcadian  origin.  There  is  the  place-name  Palatium  ;  so  it  is 
a  de-nasalized  form  of  Pallantion  in  Arcadia.  There  is  archaic  masonry 
upon  the  hill;  so  it  is  a  UeXao-yttcov  ret^os :  and  behold!  an  'important 
confirmatory  proof  of  the  Ephoran  theory  of  an  Italian  '  eparchy '  of  the 
Pelasgians ;  incidentally  also  a  good  excuse  for  Roman  intervention  in  the 
affairs  of  '  Pelasgian  '  Epirus  and  '  Pelasgian  '  Greece. 

Nor  is  the  case  of  the  Pelasgians  exceptional.  I  have  dealt  already 
incidentally  with  the  Carian  Theory  which  grew  up  on  parallel  lines  in  the 
South  Aegean,  and  more  fully  with  the  story  of  the  Tyrrhenian  name  in  the 
Aegean  and  in  the  West.  The  story  of  the  Leleges  is  shorter  and  more 
fragmentary;  but  in  its  main  outlines  it  hardly  differs.  In  all,  there  is  an 
early  period,  beginning  with  a  time  when  there  seems  to  have  been  a  real 
but  evanescent  tribe,  of  limited  geographical  range,  and  some  peculiarities  of 
culture  ;  and  ending,  between  the  sixth  and  the  fifth  centuries,  with  a  vague 
cycle  of  memories,  and  a  connotative  usage  of  the  name.  To  this,  in  each  case, 
succeeds  a  fifth-century  phase  in  which,  while  ingenious  theory  flourishes, 
real  search  for  '  survivals '  of  backward  folk  is  perceptible.  Then  comes 
the  fourth  century,  regardless  of  research,  reckless  of  accuracy  or  scholarship, 
infatuated  with  headstrong  theory,  to  which  the  evidence  (such  as  it  is) 
must  conform  or  be  ignored;  and  then  Alexandria,  stupidly  farraginous,  but 
rehabilitated  lately,  as  we  saw  to  begin  with,  as  'evidence  to  the  same  effect, 
perfectly  unexceptionable  and  as  strictly  historical  as  the  case  will  admit  of.' 

J.  L.  Myres. 


I  have  reserved  for  discussion  in  an  appendix  the  one  passage  in  which  an  ancient 
author  purports  to  describe  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  '  actual '  Pelasgians  to  gain  a  footing 
on  the  Asiatic  shore  of  the  Hellespont.  The  passage  itself  is  of  late  date  ;  and  my  only- 
reasons  for  not  treating  it  among  contemporary  passages  are  that  the  personages  to  which  it 
refers  can  be  traced  back  beyond  the  fifth  century  ;  that  the  ethnic  situation  which  it 
presupposes  has  already  been  shown  to  be  presupposed  in  the  Homeric  Age  ;  and  that  the 
incident  itself  occurs  in  a  context  which  links  it  at  latest  with  the  Ionian  colonization  of 
Propontis,  and  at  earliest  with  the  Argonaut-saga,  which  we  know  from  Homer  to  have  been 
current  in  some  form  or  other  before  the  composition  of  the  Odyssey. 

The  anecdote  in  question  is  as  follows.  The  Argonauts,  after  passing  the  Troad, 
landed  on  the  Asiatic  coast  of  Propontis,  made  friends  with  the  Doliones  and  their 
king  Cyzicus,  and  fought  some  yrjytvUs  from  the  interior,  who  tried  to  blockade  the  Argo 
in  the  so-called  xvT')S  ^'Atl71'  a'  Cyzicu9.  Soon  after,  they  were  forced  by  stress  of  weather  to 
put  back  to  the  same  friendly  coast.     Then  follow  the  crucial  lines  : — 

l.   I  Oil -4.      <iiht  tis  aiTi/f  vi,<ruv  errKppabtws  tvorjuev 

eppcvai'  ovd    V7T<>  vvkti  Aokioves  tty  aviuvras 
ijpuut  vrjpfpres  t'nT]iaav'  oXXd  ttov  avdpcoi/ 
MctKpifwv  furciPTO  IleXacryiKov  ape  a  KeXtrai. 


So  there  was  a  fight  at  <toss  purposes,  ami  great  slaughter  of  the  Doliones,  and  in  that 
fight  \va>   Cyzicus   slain,  their  king  :  whose  tomb  remained  at   the  city  of   Cyzicua  in 

Hellenic  times,  honoured  .-till  with  Argonautic  <"e6X(i. 

Now  granted  that  all  that  Apollonius  knew  was  the  foundation-legend  of  Cyzicus,  and 
some  previous  version,  not  necessarily  early,  of  the  Voyage  of  the  Argo  :  granted  also  that 
the  foundation-legend  itself  was  mainly  aetiological,  and  that  every  self-respecting  town  in 
Propontis,  and  beyond,  had  its  own  '  reminiscence  '  of  the  Argonauts,  to  prove  its  antiquitv  ; 
yet  nothing  of  all  this  explains  either  the  specific  name  of  the  Mu/cpieWj  or  why  the  phrase 
TltXaa-yiKuv  apfa  is  applied  to  their  raid. 

This  name,  and  phrase,  completely  puzzled  the  very  learned  scholiast  of  Apollonius. 
He  seems  to  have  begun  by  applying  it  to  the  Doliones  themselves;  and  he  explains 
(1)  that  the  Doliones  are  colonists  from  Euboea  ;  (2)  that  Euboea  was  once  called  Maicpis 
'I.on-  Island';  (3;  that  as  Euboea  lies  '  near  Peloponnese,  which  is  Pelasgian,' Cyzicene 
(i.e.  paullo-post-Euboic)  warfare  was  'Pelasgian'  likewise.198  We  have  clearly  to  look 
further  than  this  for  an  explanation. 

Apollonius  himself  shares,  as  we  have  seen,-'00  the  misapprehensions  of  las  time  as 
to  the  relations  of  Pelasgians  and  Tyrrhenians;  and  he  is  therefore  not  the  most  likely 
person  to  have  held  consciously  a  Pelasgian  theory,  or  recounted  willingly  a  Pelasgian 
anecdote,  which  presumed  a  quite  different  view  from  anything  which  had  been  held 
since  the  fifth  century,  if  even  consciously  so  late  as  this.  It  is  therefore  the  most 
notable,  if  he  has  preserved  such  an  anecdote  ;  and  if  he  has,  there  is  a  fair  presumption 
that  he  did  not  invent  it,  but  found  it  in  existence  and  used  it. 

The  version  of  the  same  incident  which  is  given  by  Apollodorus  -01  su^o-ests  that 
there  was  more  in  the  authority  which  Apollonius  was  following,  than  he  chose  to  in- 
corporate in  his  Argonautica.  The  passage  is  worth  quoting  in  full:  «pj  Arjpvov  8e 
TVpoo-l(TXov<JI-  -ioKiocri,  hv  tjaalXtve  Ktfi/coy  ovtos  airoi's  vTTt8e^aro  cptXorppovus.  vvktos 
dva\6tvTes  (vrtvOev,  KM  TTfpcTTfat'wTfS  uvtittvoUus,  dyvoovvTfs  nd\u>  tois  AdXioji  Trpoaicrvova-iu. 
oi  S«  vopl^ovre  s  Ile\a<ry  i  kov  fii'Oi  arparov  (eri^oi/  yap  v  tv  6  II  e  A  a  crv  w  i> 
crvv  e  \a)  s   tt  o  A  e  pov  pe  v  o  i)    pd^v  ttjs  vvktos  (rvvdnrovaiv,  dyuoovvres  npos  dyvoovvras. 

Who  were  these  Pelasgians  by  whom  the  Doliones  were  '  incessantky  raided  '  \  Thev 
can  hardly  be  the  Herodotean  Pelasgians  of  Placie  and  Scylace  ;  partly  because  the 
Pelasgians  are  apparently  still  an  European  people  in  Homer,  and  had  certainly  not  yet 
reached  Lemnos  in  the  Homeric  Age  ;  but  still  more  because  it  was  a  sea-borne  raid  which 
convinced  the  Doliones  that  the  invaders  were  Pelasgian,  and  the  Pelasgians  of  Placie  and 
Scylace  were  on  the  same  side  of  Propontis  as  Cyzicus  itself. 

But  were  they  Pelasgians  from  Lemnos?  Certainly  not,  in  a  poem  by  Apollonius,  or 
we  should  surely  have  heard  something  of  this  exploit  in  his  version  of  the  Lemnian  episode. 
Moreover,  even  if  Apollonius  had  thought  that  there  were  Pelasgians  in  Lemnos  in 
Jason's  time,  there  is  Homeric  authority,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  contrary. 

The  whole  question  is  somewhat  complicated  by  the  fact  that  there  was  also  great  doubt 
in  antiquity  as  to  who  were  the  Doliones.  Stephanos  says'-"-  that  Homer  applied  this  name 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Cyzicus  wy  tovs  top  "lapapov  Kikovcis:  but  this  does  not  occur  in  our 
text  of  Homer.  It  suggests  however  that  there  existed  some  '  Homeric  '  source  of  tradition 
about  Cyzicus  ;  and  this  we  shall  soon  see  to  be  probable  otherwise. 

In  the  ordinary  way  Cyzicus  counted  as  a  colony  of  Miletus;  but  we  know  from 
Hecataeus  of  Miletus,-0'5  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  that  it  had  a  previous  existence 
as  a  town  of  the  Doliones  (or  Dolieis  as  Hecataeus  himself  wrote  the  name).  The 
geographical  situation  is  discussed  fully  and  clearly  by  St raho.-'1  But  who  the  Doliones 
were  is  only  known  from  one  phrase  of  Kphorus,  and  from  Alexandrine  or  later  writers ; 
and  opinions  differed  then  in  an  instructive  way.      Ephorus203  describes  them  as  TltXatryovs 

199  Schol.  Ap.  Eh.  i.  962,  1024.  -"-  Steph.  Byz.  s.v.  Kv{ikos. 

200  Above  p.  221,  n.  188.  L":<  Fr.  204=Steph.  Byz.  s.v.  AoA.'oves, 
-ul  i.    9.    18.    1.      Apollodorus    wrote    circa  Xi  Str.  ;"75. 

140  B.C.  Schol.  Ap.  Bh.  i.  1037. 


J.  L.  MYRES 

ovras  Kai  e^Bpcoftws  8ia.K€ifievovs  irpbs  tovs  tijv  QerraXiav  xai  Muyrpjo'iai'  kcitoikovvtcis  Sia  to 
arT(\acrdr]vai  vV  avruv.  i.e.  he  regards  the  Doliones  as  exiled  Thessalian-Pelasgians  ;  and  in 
this  he  is  followed  by  Conon,206  who  adds  that  Cyzicus  was  their  king  in  Thessaly,  and 
that  those  who  expelled  them  were  Aeolians.  It  is  therefore  not  merely  a  confusion  of 
names  when  another  late  writer-07  calls  the  Doliones  'Dolopes';  for  we  have  seen 
already203  that  the  population  of  Scyros  which  for  Thucydides  was  '  Dolopian '  had  become 
'  Pelasgian'  already  for  Ephorns,  and  remained  so  for  Scymnus  and  Nicolas. 

But  there  was  a  quite  different  account  of  the  Doliones,209  which  described  them  not 
as  exiles  from  Thessaly,  but  as  cittoikoi  6erraX&>i>,  and  consequently  kinsmen  of  Jason,  and 
fellow-enemies  both  of  the  expelled  Pelasgians,  and  of  the  yr/yevea  of  the  Cyzicene  interior. 
This  was  the  view  of  Deiloehus,  whom  the  Scholiast  says  that  Apollonius  was  following.210 
These  yrfyevies  are  an  additional  element  of  complexity  in  the  story.  Apollonius  says  that 
it  was  they  who  tried  to  blockade  the  Argo  in  the  \vr"S  Xi/x?)z>  during  the  visit  to  Cyzicus211 
and  were  slain  by  Heracles  and  his  comrades;  but  Deiloehus212  ascribes  the  blockade  to  the 
Pelasgians  Kara  t'xOos  to  7Tp6s  to'is  0err<iXoiy  v(p'  hv  i^elieS'KrjVTO,213  and  says214  that  the 
yrjyevets  were  Qeacra^ols  (i.e.  AoXiWi)  eyxeipoydo-ropas,  and  that  it  was  they  who  mistook  the 
Argonauts  for  pirates  and  planned  the  attack  on  them  :  an  obvious  attempt  to  relieve  the 
Thessalian  Cyzicenes  from  the  reproach  of  that  blunder.  Stephanus  also  (s.v.  Be'aftiKos) 
distinguishes  the  obstructive  yrjyevees  from  the  Pelasgians,  but  curiously  reckons  the 
Pelasgians  as  allies  of  Heracles  in  his  destruction  of  the  yrjyevets. 

Conon  also  adds  that  varepov  (i.e.  after  the  fight  with  Jason)  the  surviving  Doliones  1770 
Tvppr^vuiv  Kv^ikov  p(Tavi<Ttr](Tav  <a\  Tvpprjvol  ttjv  ~K(pp()vqTov  i'cr^ov  :  and  that  it  was  these 
'Tyrrhenians'  whom  the  Milesian  colonists  found  there.  Conon  therefore  had  also  before 
him,  besides  the  '  Pelasgic '  view  of  Ephorus,  this  other  story  which  distinguished  the 
Doliones  of  Cyzicus  from  ' Tyrrhenian '  marauders  in  Hellespont;  and  we  may  well 
believe  that,  writing  as  late  as  he  did,  he  meant  by  '  Tyrrhenian'  to  signify  much  the  same 
as  the  H(~\a<TyiKov  apea  of  Apollonius. 

We  reach  therefore  this  conclusion.  Attractive  and  accepted  as  it  was,  the  Ephoran 
view,  that  the  Doliones  were  Pelasgians  from  Thessaly,  did  not  wholly  eclip>e  an  alternative 
legend  that  they  belonged  to  the  same  great  Pagasaean  adventure-cycle  as  the  Argonauts 
themselves  ;  and  that  in  their  Hellespontine  home  they  and  their  friends  were  exposed  to 
the  attack,  not  merely  of  half-conquered  yqyevfes  (avroxtioves)  on  their  own  side  of  the 
water,  but  also  of  enemies  from  the  European  shore.  These  enemies  Apollonius  still  calls 
'  Pelasgian  :  :  only  a  later  compiler  like  Conon  uses  the  marine  equivalent  'Tyrrhenian.5 

And  this  glimpse  of  another  tradition  does  not  stand  quite  alone.  One  of  the  theories, 
we  may  remember,  to  account  for  the  Dolopes  of  Scyros  and  the  men  of  Sciathos,  was  that 
they  were  EleXao-yoi  e«c  QpaK.rjs21-'  8ta/3dires,  as  Xoyoj :  and  we  know  that  in  the  Homeric 
Age  there  were  already  'actual'  Pelasgians  as  far  afield  as  Crete.  We  must  remember  also 
that  Placie  and  Scylace,  where  Herodotus  knew  of  Pelasgians  surviving  and  speaking 
'Pelasgic'  in  the  fifth  century,  are  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Cyzicus  itself. 
Mela210  moreover  has  a  very  similar  suggestion  about  the  Doliones  themselves,  for  he 
brings  both  them  and  their  king  Cyzicus  not  from  Thessaly  or  Euboea,  but  from  Thrace, 
making  them,  in  fact,  almost  an  advanced  guard  of  our  immigrant  Pelasgians  from  the 
same  region  ;  so  that  it  is  not  impossible  that  here  we  may  have  a  clue  to  the  origin  of 
that  '  Pelasgian '  ancestry  or  quality  of  the  Doliones  of  C\  zicus,  which  attracted  the 
attention  of  Ephorus,  and  led  to  their  incorporation  in  the  great  Pelasgian  mythology. 

It   seems   probable,  then,  that    we    may   infer  that   what  is  present  to  the  mind  of 

'■""■  Nctrr.  n. 

-"'  Orpb.  Arg.  497    " 

■""•  j..  221  above. 

• Scbol.  Ap.  bli.  i.  921,  987. 

210  Scbol.  Ap.  Mi.  i.  1037. 
"  Ap.  Rh.  i.  987. 
-'-  Scbol.  Ap.  Rh.  i.  1037. 

-1S  Schol.  Ap.  Rh.  i.  987. 

-14  Scbol.  989. 

"■ '  Scymnus,  f. S 4 ,  see  p.  '-'21  above. 

216  Mela  i.  19,  2.  Compare  Strabo's  discus- 
sion of  the  ethnography  of  all  this  region,  sum- 
marized on  p.  li'ti  above. 


U -Jo 

Apollonius  anil  some  other  late  writers  is  a  picture  of  a  Thrace  which  the  Hellespont, 
as  in  Homer's  time,  tWos-  e's'pyet  with  difficulty  ;  and  of  an  Asiatic  coast  watched,  like  a 
'Saxon  shore,'  day  and  night  for  the  'Winged  Hats'  from  the  European  side. 

But  all  this  breathes  a  quite  different  atmosphere  from  that  of  the  Alexandrian 
Library.  It  presumes  the  existence  of  the  Thraceward  Pelasgians  of  the  Catalogue,  of  whom 
no  single  Greek  writer.  I  think,  takes  any  positive  account  till  Strabo  ;  and  even  Herodotus 
only  implicitly  and  vaguely.  It  comes  to  us  in  a  context,— the  foundationdegend  of 
Cyzicus,  and  the  ritual  mWos  of  it.-  slain  founder-king,-  which  we  can  trace  in  nomenclature 
back  to  Hecataeus  of  Miletus,  and  consequently  beyond  the  period  where  the  Ephoran  theory 
of  a  Pelasgian  conquest  begins  to  predominate  over  all  :  back,  in  fact,  into  days  when 
Lemnian  Pelasgians  were  known  to  be  post-Argonautic,  and  the  Pelasgians  of  Placie  and 
Scylace  were  still  talking  their  own  language  and  recounting  their  own  traditions. 

It  gives  us,  in  fact,  a  very  strong  case  for  believing  that  here,  at  any  rate,  Apollonius 
is  incorporating,  almost  verbally,  a  section  of  a  very  much  older  Argonautica  ;  that  this 
Argonautica  goes  up  certainly  into  the  early  days  of  Milesian  colonization,  probably  into 
the  Homeric  Age  ;  and  very  possibly  even  to  a  generation  which  stood  to  the  Argonauts 
and  the  Doliones  as  Demodocus  stood  to  the  Trojan  War. 

J.  L.  M. 

H.S. — VOL.    XXVII. 


1.  FRAGMENT  of  white  marble,  entire  at  the  upper  and  right  edge  only, 
measuring  5^  in.  x  4  in.  Found  among  the  ruins  of  Troy  on  Apr.  20,  1907, 
by  Mr.  F.  G.  Harman  from  the  '  Argonaut '  :  now  the  property  of  J.  Alison 
Glover,  Esq.,  M.D. 




n*  OEN  TAy$EATX 


-   -   - "   "    o){v) 

__------------    eypaxfrev    -   -   ■ 

-------------  AfofuXo?   z^avdlir- 

7rou     -   -   -   -    €K   -  -   t]j}   iravrfyvpet,     toj[v 

X\ava6r}vala>v  -  -  arecpaj^codeura  vcp'  ear5)\y     o 
----------------   ea   \  -   -  - 

The  date  is  late,  not  earlier  than  the  first  century  B.C.,  as  is  indicated  by 
the  absence  of  the  iota  adscriptum  (1.  4),  and  the  coarse  style  of  the  lettering. 
The  form  earcov  in  1.  5  is  characteristic  of  the  first  century  B.C.1  Am/>A.o9 
"BavBliTTrov  is  not  otherwise  known  to  me.  The  irav^yvp^  or  festival 
assembly  of  the  Panathenaea  at  Troy  celebrated  by  the  nine  cities  of  the  Ilian 
union  is  mentioned  in  numerous  inscriptions.2  It  is  impossible  to  define 
further  the  outline  of  the  original  document,  as  so  much  is  lost. 

2-3.  'Two  tablets  of  marble,  now  in  the  house  of  M.  Jean  Gaetano,  a  silk- 
manufacturer,  at  Moudania,  on  the  sea  of  Marmora.  Found  by  him  whilst 
diff°ine  foundations  for  a  wall  near  the  centre  of  the  town.     2,  measuring 

1  Meisterhans-Schwyzer,  Grammatik  der  att.  461  ;  Dittenberger,  Syll.2  503  ;  Or.  Or.  Inscr. 

Inschr.'  p.  154  ;    Dittenberger,  Syll.2  328,  note  Scl.  444,  notes  1  anil  6.     rw[v  eWa  iroXewv  is 

14_  also  a  possible  restoration. 

1  K.y.  DSrpfeld,    Troja  ».   Won,  ii.   p.    454, 


about  3  ft.  by  1  ft.,  was  buried  some  six  feet  beneath  the  surface,  and  was 
found  in  an  upright  position.  Of  3  (which  is  smaller,  about  9  in.  wide  and 
6  in.  high,  and  found  near  2)  nothing  further  is  noted.  Both  tablets  are 
ornamented  with  serpents,  3  having  a  coiled  serpent  above  in  relief,  2  an 
extended  serpent  incised.  2  is  broken  into  several  fragments  ;  but  the  surface 
is  wonderfully  fresh  (the  lines  ruled  by  the  stone-cutter  being  still  quite 
obvious),  I  understand  from  M.  Gaetauo  that  traces  of  an  ancient  channel  or 
waterway  were  found  beside  these  stones.'     (Note  by  J.  A.  Glover,  Esq.,  M.D.) 














'Ayadfj  ti>XV  'E'Ttijkoco  dew  XaK\i]7riM  'E,7ri8avp{'p  Uepya/iyjva)  Sicopvya 
/caToiKOvvTi  T.  Nat'/3i09  'Iovcttos  inrep  acoTtjpi'at  ri]v  crroav  kclI  tov  et?  tijv 
oiKoho/iiav  roirov  £xapLaaT0  T(f>  &€<*>• 

OP(j)  ANOIYn  E  P  I  A  I 
A  I  IHT  H  P  I  A  I  AhE 

VpaKXiS  2.€/covi'&o<;  6p(j>avo<;  vnrep  i&la*;  aa)ri]pc'a^  aviOi-jKa  'Actk\j]771(i) 

On  April  19,  1907  ;i  number  of  us  who  were  travelling  on  board  the 
'  Argonaut  *  landed  at  Moudania.  and  thouce  proceeded  by  rail  to  Brusa  in 
Bithynia.  While  in  Moudania  our  doctor.  Mr.  J.  Alison  Glover.  M.D.,  heard 
of  these  inscriptions,  and  went  to  see  them.     He  took  copies  and  memoranda 

Q  2 


of  both  :  of  3  lie  made  also  a  rough  rubbing.  These  he  has  handed  to  me 
for  publication.  They  are  not  in  Boeckh's  Corpus,  and  I  do  not  remember  to 
have  seen  them  before.  The  inscriptions  are  entire  and  legible.  The  last 
line  of  3  is  slightly  obscured  by  the  carved  margin  of  the  stone ;  but  no 
doubt  the  third  latter  is  n,  and  not  0-  Dr.  Glover  writes  c  carefully  in  2 : 
his  rubbing  and  copy  of  3  give  2.      Iota  adscript  is  absent. 

Myrlea,  renamed  by  Prusias  Apameia  after  his  wife,  and  now  known  as 
Moudania,  was  in  ancient  days,  as  now,  a  natural  landing  place  for  those  who 
wanted  to  reach  Prusa.  The  distance  between  the  two  towns  as  the  crow  flies 
is  about  ten  miles  :  by  rail  or  road,  nearer  twenty.  Prusa  itself  is  noted  for  its 
water-supply,  and  its  baths  were  as  famous  in  antiquity  (Pliny,  Ep.  to  Tr. 
xxiii)  as  to-day.  Of  the  social  history  of  Myrlea  we  know  practically  nothing. 
The  inscriptions  before  us  belong  to  the  second  century  a.d.  They  indicate 
that  there  was  an  altar  or  temple  at  Myrlea  to  Asklepios,  and  that  near  his 
sanctuary,  or  through  it,  there  flowed  a  stream  of  pure  water  artificially 
brought  by  a  conduit  (Stwpvf;),  possibly  from  the  medicinal  stream  running 
down  from  the  springs  at  Brusa. 

In  2  Asklepios  is  spoken  of  as  the  god  of  Epidauros  and  of  Pergamon. 
Readers  of  Aristeides  the  Orator  will  fully  appreciate  the  epithet  Uepyafxrjvo}? 
A  Roman  named  Caius  Naevius  Justus  makes  a  free  sift  to  the  sod  of  a 
'  stoa,'  or  colonnade,  and  the  site  on  which  he  built  it.  This  dedication  he 
makes  inrep  acortjpta^,  i.e.  probably  he  had  escaped  harm  in  an  epidemic, 
and  had  attributed  his  immunity  to  the  favour  of  the  god.  'Ew^/com 
suggests  that  it  was  in  answer  to  prayer.1  It  may  be  noted  that  Sicopvya 
(line  6)  is  regarded  as  a  less  correct  form  than  hiajpv%a,  while  olKohoplav  is 
certainly  better  Attic  than  oUoSo/uijv  (cp.  van  Herwerden,  Lex.  s.v.). 

3,  which  cannot  be  much  later,  and  is  perhaps  earlier,  than  2,  is  a 
dedication  to  the  same  deity,  here  called  AicopvyecTi]*;,  by  one  Gracchis 
Secundus,  vTrep  ISicis  aa>Tr)pLas.  Probably  he  had  lost  one  or  both  of  his 
parents  in  an  epidemic  (dpcpavos),  and  attributes  his  own  safety  to  the  favour 
of  the  god.  The  name  Gracchis  is  unique,  so  far  as  I  know.  Happily  the 
evidence  of  the  marble  is  beyond  question. 

The  Roman  names  remind  us  that  Apameia  (Myrlea)  was  a  colonia:  see 
Hardy's  note  on  Apameia  in  his  edition  of  Pliny's  CorresjJondcncc  with  Trajan, 
p.  148,  Ep.  xlvii. 

E.  L.  Hicks. 

-  Cp.  I'aus.  ii.  26.  8  on  the  relation  between       and   the  Peiraeus  inscr.    AeA-r.    1S8S.   p.    134, 
the  cult.-  :it  Pergamon  and  Epidaurus.  No.  20. 

4  Op.  also  Fouillcs  d'JJlpid.  p.   58,  No.    11" 

J.  H.  S.  VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.   XVI. 

-I   V 

o  . : 

u.  ^ 
O  .§ 

UJ  t. 

w   - 

<  §> 

CO  i 

I-  § 













J.   H.  S.   VOL.   XXVII.  (1907)      PL.   XV. 

MONEMVASIA.      A. — Havajia   MvpTiSiwrtacra. 

{Photograph  by  Mr.  A.  J.  B.  Wace. 

MONEMVASIA.     B.—  Ayia  So^ta. 

{Photograph  by  Mr.  A.  J.  B.  Wace. 

[Plates  XV.,  XVI.] 

MONEMVASIA    DURING    THE    FlIAXKISH    PERIOD   (1204-1540). 

There  are  few  places  in  Greece  which  possess  the  combined  charms  of 
natural  beauty  and  of  historic  association  to  the  same  extent  as  Monemvasia, 
The  great  rock  which  rises  out  of  the  sea  near  the  ancient  Epidauros  Limera 
is  not  only  one  of  the  most  picturesque  sites  of  the  Peloponnese,  but  has  a 
splendid  record  of  heroic  independence,  which  entitles  it  to  a  high  place  in  the 
list  of  the  world's  fortresses  (Figs.  1,  2).  Monernvasia's  importance  is,  however, 
wholly  mediaeval ;  and  its  history  has  hitherto  never  been  written  ;  for  the 
painstaking  brochure  of  the  patriotic  Monemvasiote  deputy  and  ex-Minister 
K.  Papamichalopoulos,  was  composed  before  modern  research  rendered  it 
possible  to  draw  upon  the  original  authorities  at  Venice  and  elsewhere.  In 
the  present  paper  I  have  endeavoured  to  state  briefly  what,  in  the  present 
state  of  Greek  mediaeval  studies,  is  known  about  this  interesting  city  during 
the  Frankish  period. 

Fig.  1.  —Monemvasia  from   riiE  Land. 
{Photograph  by  Mrs.  Miller.) 

At  the  time  of  the  Frankish  Conquest  of  the  rest  of  Greece,  Monemvasia 
was  already  a  place  of  considerable  importance.  Even  if  we  reject  the  state- 
ment of  the  fifteenth  century  historian,  Phrantzes,1  himself  a  native  of  the 
place,  that  the  Emperor  Maurice  had  raised  it  to  the  rank  of  the  34th  Metro- 
politan see — a  statement  contradicted  by  an  ecclesiastical  document  of  1307 
— we  know  at  least  that  it  was  even  then  the  seat  of  a  Greek  bishopric, 
whose  holder  remained  a  suffragan  of  Corinth  -  till  the  Latins  captured  the 

1'.  398.  37  .;•  <■  ,    ii.    287  ;    Dorotfieos    of 

Miklosich  und  Miiller,  Acta  et  I  ".  isia,  B./J.uV  laropiKov  (ed.  1814),  397. 



latter  city  in  1210,  The  Comneni  had  confirmed  the  liberties  of  a  community 
so  favourably  situated,  and  the  local  aristocracy  of  Monemvasia  enjoyed  the 
privilege  of  self-government.  Thanks  to  the  public  spirit  of  its  inhabitants, 
the  wisdom  of  the  local  magnates,  and  the  strength  of  its  natural  defences, 
which  made  it  in  the  Middle  Ages  the  Gibraltar  of  Greece,  it  had  repelled 
the  attack  of  the  Normans  from  Sicily  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century. 
Fifty  years  later  it  was  a  busy  sea-port  town,  whose  ships  were  seen  at  the 

Fig.  2. — Monemvasia.     Entrance  to  Kastro. 
(Photograph  by  Mr.  A.  J.  B.    Waee.) 

Piraeus  by  Michael  Akominatos,  the  last  Metropolitan  of  Athens  before  the 
Conquest,  and  whose  great  artistic  treasure,  thc^  famous  picture  of  Our  Lord 
being  'dragged,'  which  has  given  its  name  to  the  'JL\ko/j,€vo<;  church,  attracted 
the  covetousness  of  the  Emperor  Isaac  II.3 

As  might  have  been  expected  from  its  position  and  history,  Monemvasia 
was  the  last  spot  in  the  Peloponnese  to  acknowledge  the  Frankish  supremacy. 
Geoffrey  I.  Villehardouin  had  contented  himself  perforce  with  sending  a  body 

Lampros,  Mix^tjA  'Ako/j.lvo.tov,  ii.  137  ;  Niketas,  97,  581-92. 


of  troops  to  raid  the  country  as  far  as  the  causeway,  or  /xovr)  efjb/3acn<i, 
which  leads  to  the  great  rock-fortress  and  from  which  its  name  is 
derived;4  and  his  son  Geoffrey  II.  seems  to  have  meditated  the  con- 
quest of  the  place  ;5  but  it  was  reserved  for  the  third  of  the  Villehardouins, 
soldierly  Prince  William,  to  hoist  the  croix  ancrdc  of  his  family  over  the 
'sacred  rock'  of  Hellenism,  which  was  in  uninterrupted  communication  by 
sea  with  the  successor  of  Byzantium,  the  Greek  Emperor  of  Nicaea,6  and  was 
therefore  a  constant  source  of  annoyance  to  the  Franks  of  the  Peloponnese. 
The  Prince,  after  elaborate  preparations,  began  the  siege  in  1245.  He  sum- 
moned to  his  aid  the  great  vassals  of  the  Principality — Guy  I.  of  Athens,  who 
owed  him  allegiance  for  Nauplia  and  Argos ;  the  three  barons  of  Euboea  ; 
Angelo  Sanudo,  Duke  of  Naxos,  with  the  other  lords  of  the  Cyclades,  and  the 
veteran  Count  Palatine  of  Cephalonia,  Matteo  Orsini.  ruler  of  the  island- 
realm  of  Odysseus.7  But  the  Prince  of  Achaia  saw  that  without  the  naval 
assistance  of  Venice,  which  had  taken  care  that  his  principality  should  not 
become  a  sea-power,  he  could  never  capture  the  place.  He  accordingly 
obtained  the  aid  of  four  Venetian  galleys,  and  then  proceeded  to  invest  the 
great  rock-fortress  by  land  and  water.  For  three  long  years  the  garrison  held 
out,  '  like  a  nightingale  in  its  cage,'  as  the  Chronicler  quaintly  says — and  the 
simile  is  most  appropriate,  for  the  place  abounds  with  those  songsters — till 
all  supplies  were  exhausted,  and  they  had  eaten  the  very  cats  and  mice. 
Even  then,  however,  they  only  surrendered  on  condition  that  they  should  be 
excused  from  all  feudal  services,  except  at  sea,  and  should  even  in  that  case  be 
paid.  True  to  the  conciliatory  policy  of  his  family,  William  wisely  granted 
their  terms,  and  then  the  three  arclions  of  Monemvasia,  Mamonas,  Daimon- 
oyannes,  and  Sophianos,  advanced  along  the  narrow  causeway  to  his  camp  and 
offered  him  the  keys  of  their  town.  The  conqueror  received  them  with  the 
respect  of  one  brave  man  for  another,  loaded  them  with  costly  gifts,  and  gave 
them  fiefs  at  Vatika  near  Cape  Malea.  A  Frankish  garrison  was  installed  in 
the  coveted  fortress ;  and  a  Latin  bishop,  Oddo  of  Verdun,  at  last  occupied 
the  episcopal  palace  there,  which  had  been  his  (on  paper)  ever  since 
Innocent  III.8  had  organised  the  Latin  see  of  Monemvasia  as  one  of  the 
suffragans  of  Corinth. 

The  Frankish  occupation  lasted,  however,  only  fourteen  years,  and  has  left 
no  marks  on  the  picturesque  town.  Buchon,  indeed,  who  spied  the  Ville- 
hardouin  arms  on  the  Gorgoepekoos  church  at  Athens,  thought  that  he  had 
discovered  the  famous  croix  ancrec  on  oue  of  the  churches.9  He  apparently 
meant  the  'EX/to/ievo?  Church,  which  the  late  Sir  T.  Wyse  called  and 
Murray's  Handbook  still  calls  St.  Peter's— a  name  not  now  known  in  Monem- 
vasia, but  derived  perhaps  from  an  inscription  to  a  certain  Dorninus  Petnis, 

4  Tb  XpoviKov  rov  Mopeais,  1.  2065.  contingents. 

"  Ibid.  11.  2630,  2644.  B  Epislolac,   vol.    ii.    p.    622  ;    Les  Begistres 

6  Ibid.  11.  2765-9.  d'Lmoccnt  IT.  vol.  iii.  306.  397. 

7  Ibid.  11.  2891-6  ;  Romanos,  rpanavbs  '  La  Grece  Conlincntah,  p.  412  ;  Sir  T. 
ZdpCv^.  136.  The  French  version  of  the  Wyse,  Excursion  Into  the  Peloponnesus,  i.  6. 
'Chronicle'  omits  the  Naxian  ami  Cephalonian  Cf.  Mr.  Tozer  in  J.H.S.  iv.  233-6. 


whose  remains  'lie  in  peace'  hard  by.  One  church  in  the  town,  'Our  Lady 
of  the  Myrtle,'  bears,  it  is  true,  a  cross  with  anchored  work  below,  and  four 
stars  above  the  door.  But  this  church,  as  I  was  informed  and  as  the  name 
implies,  was  founded  by  people  from  Cerigo,  whose  patron  saint  is  the  Havayia 
MvpTiSicoTiaaa  (Pi.  XV.  A).  The  capture  of  the  town  by  the  Franks  is, 
however,  still  remembered  at  Monemvasia,  and  local  tradition  points  out  the 
place  on  the  mainland  where  Villehardouin  left  his  cavalry.  One  pathetic 
event  occurred  at  the  rock  during  the  brief  Frankish  period — the  visit  of  the 
last  Latin  Emperor  of  Constantinople,  Baldwin  II.,  in  1261,  on  his  way  from 
his  lost  capital  to  Italy.10  In  the  following  year  Monemvasia  was  one  of  the 
castles  ceded  to  his  successor,  the  Emperor  Michael  VIII.  Palaiologos,  as  the 
ransom  of  Prince  William  of  Achaia,  captured  by  the  Greeks  three  years 
earlier  after  the  fatal  battle  of  Pelagonia. 

The  mediaeval  importance  of  Monemvasia  really  dates  from  this  retro- 
cession to  the  Byzantine  Emperor  in  1262,  when  a  Byzantine  province  was 
established  in  the  south-east  of  the  Morea.  It  not  only  became  the  seat  of  an 
Imperial  governor,  or  tcecfraX)],  but  it  was  the  landing-place  where  the  Imperial 
troops  were  disembarked  for  operations  against  the  Franks,  the  port  where 
the  Tzakones  and  the  Gasmouloi,  or  half-castes,  of  the  Peloponnese  enlisted 
for  service  in  the  Greek  navy.  During  the  war  which  began  in  1263  between 
Michael  VIII.  and  his  late  captive,  we  accordingly  frequently  find  it  men- 
tioned ;  it  was  thither  that  the  Genoese  transports  in  the  Imperial  service 
conveyed  the  Greek  troops ;  it  was  thither,  too,  that  the  news  of  the  first 
breach  of  the  peace  was  carried  post-haste,  and  thence  communicated  to 
Constantinople ;  it  was  there  that  the  Imperial  generals  took  up  their  head- 
quarters at  the  outset  of  the  campaign  ;  and  it  was  upon  the  Monemvasiotes 
that  the  combatants,  when  they  were  reconciled,  agreed  to  lay  the  blame  for 
the  war.11  Under  the  shadow  of  the  Greek  flag,  Monemvasia  became,  too, 
one  of  the  most  dangerous  lairs  of  corsairs  in  the  Levant.  The  great  local 
families  did  not  disdain  to  enter  the  profession,  and  Ave  read  of  both  the  Daimon- 
oyannai  and  the  Mamonades  in  the  report  of  the  Venetian  judges,  who  drew 
up  a  long  statement  in  1278  of  the  depredations  caused  by  pirates  to  Venetian 
commerce  in  the  Levant.  On  one  occasion  the  citizens  looked  calmly  on 
while  a  flagrant  act  of  piracy  was  being  committed  in  their  harbour,  which,  as 
the  port  of  shipment  for  Malmsey  wine,  attracted  corsairs  who  were  also 
connoisseurs.1'2  Moreover,  the  Greek  occupation  of  so  important  a  position 
was  fatal  to  the  Venetian  lords  of  the  neiohbourinof  islands,  no  less  than  to 
Venetian  trade  in  the  Aegean.  The  chief  sufferers  were  the  two  Marquesses 
of  Cerigo  and  Cerigotto,  members  of  the  great  families  of  Venier  and  Viaro, 
who  had  occupied  those  islands  after  the  Fourth  Crusade.  It  would  appear 
from  a  confused  passage  of  the  Italian  Memoir  on  Cerigo,  that  the  islanders, 

Tb  Xpovncov  tov  Mo/>e'a>?,  1.  1306;   /.-   Livrc  4643,  502(5,  5509,  5576. 

de  la  Conqucste,  p.  27.  12  Fontcs     Rcrum    Austriacarum,     Abt. 

"  Lea  Rcgistresd'Urbain  II'.  ii.  100,  :J41  ;  Tb  15.  xiv.  164,  192  :;,  204,  215,  220,  226,  248. 
Xpoumbv  tov  Moptus,  II.   1504,  4547,4580,4534, 


impatient  at  the  treatment  which  they  received  from  their  Latin  lord,  the 
descendant,  as  he  boasted,  of  the  island-goddess  Venus  herself,  sent  a  depu- 
tation to  invoke  the  aid  of  the  Greek  governor  of  the  new  Byzantine  province 
in  the  Morea.18  At  any  rate,  the  famous  cruise  of  Licario,  the  upstart  Italian 
of  Negroponte  who  went  over  to  the  Greeks,  temporarily  ended  the  rule  of 
the  Venetian  Marquesses.  A  governor  was  sent  to  Cerigo  from  Monemvasia  ; 
but  ere  long  Michael  VIII.  conferred  that  island  upon  the  eminent  Monem- 
vasiote  archon,  Paul  Monoyannes,  who  is  described  in  a  Venetian  document  as 
being  in  1275  'the  vassal  of  the  Emperor  and  captain  of  Cerigo.'  Mono- 
yannes fortified  the  island,  where  his  tomb  was  discovered  during  the  British 
protectorate,  and  it  remained  in  the  possession  of  his  family  till  1309,  when 
intermarriage  between  the  children  of  its  Greek  and  Latin  lords  restored 
Cerigo  to  the  Venieri.14 

The  Byzantine  Emperors  naturally  rewarded  a  community  so  useful  to 
them  as  that  of  Monemvasia.     Michael  VIII.  granted  its  citizens  valuable 
fiscal  exemptions;  his  pious  son  and  successor,  Andionikos  II.  not  only  con- 
firmed their  privileges  and  possessions,  but  founded  the  church  of  the  Divine 
Wisdom  which  still  stands  in  the  castle.     The  adjoining  cloister  has  fallen  in 
ruins;  the  Turks  after  1540  converted  the  church,  like  the  more  famous  Santa 
Sophia  of  Constantinople,  into  a  mosque,  the   mihrab  of  which  may  still  be 
traced,  and  smashed  all  the  heads  of  the  saints  which  once  adorned  the  church 
—an  edifice  reckoned  as  ancient  even  in  the  days  of  the  Venetian  occupation, 
when  a  Monemvasiote  family  had  the /its  patronatm  over  it  (PI.  XV.  B).     But 
a  fine  Byzantine  plaque  over  the  door— two  peacocks  and  two  lambs— still 
preserves  the  memory  of  the  Byzantine  connexion.     Of  Andionikos  II.  we 
have,  too,  another  Monemvasiote   memorial— the  Golden  Bull    of  1293,  by 
which  he  gave  to  the  Metropolitan  the  title  of  '  Exarch  of  all  the  Pelopon- 
nesos/  with  jurisdiction  over  eight  bishoprics,  some,  it  is  true,  still  in  partibus 
infidelium,  as  well  as  the  titular  Metropolitan  throne  of  Side,  and  confirmed 
all  the  rights  and  property  of  his  diocese,  which  was  raised  to  be  the  tenth  of 
the  Empire  and  extended,  at  any  rate  on  paper,  right  across  the  peninsula  to 
'  Pylos,  which  is  called  A varinos ' — a  convincing  proof  of  the  error  made  by 
Hopf  in    supposing  that  the  name  of  Navarino  arose   from  the   Navarrese 
company  a  century  later.     The  Emperor  lauds  in  this  interesting  document, 
which  bears  his  portrait  and  is  still  preserved  in  the  National  Library  and  (in 
a  copy)  in  the  Christian  Archaeological  Museum  at  Athens,  the  convenience 
and  safe  situation  of  the  town,  the  number  of  its  inhabitants,  their  affluence 
and  their  technical  skill,  their  seafaring  qualities,  and  their  devotion  to  his 
throne  and  person.     His  grandson  and  namesake,  Andronikos  III.  in    L332, 
granted  them  freedom  from  market-dues  at  the  Peloponnesian  fairs."     But  a 
city  so   prosperous  was   sure   to  attract   the  covetous    glances    o(   enemies. 

is  Antique  Mcmoru    di  Cerigo,  apud  Sathas,  Cronol  ■    1'"1-    w':    "   ; 

Mi/iju«a  'EAA»jnK7}s  'Iffroplas,  vi.  301.  Krscli  und  Grubcr,  lxxxv.  310.  _ 

»  Sauudo,    Istoria   del    Regno,   apud    Hopf,  l5  Miklosich  and  MulU-r.  op.  at  v.  loo  ol  ; 

Chroniques  Grteo-r us,    127  ;  Fontes  lierum  PhrantzSs,  399,  100  :  Dorotl sol  Monemvasia, 

Austriacarinn,  Abt.  ii.  B.  xiv.  181 ;  Sansovino,  B^AiV  '\<jtoPlk6v.  ■ 


Accordingly,  in  1292,  Roger  de  Lluria,  the  famous  admiral  of  King  James  of 
Aragon,  on  the  excuse  that  the  Emperor  had  failed  to  pay  the  subsidy 
promised  by  his  father  to  the  late  King  Peter,  descended  upon  Monemvasia, 
and  sacked  the  lower  town  without  a  blow.  The  archons  and  the  people  took 
refuge  in  the  impregnable  citadel,  leaving  their  property  and  their  Metro- 
politan in  the  power  of  the  enemy.10  Ten  years  later,  another  Roger,  Roger 
de  Flor,  the  leader  of  the  Catalan  Grand  Company,  put  into  Monemvasia  on 
his  way  to  the  East  on  that  memorable  expedition  which  wras  destined  to  ruin 
'  the  pleasaunce  of  the  Latins  '  in  the  Levant.  On  this  occasion  the  Catalans 
were  naturally  on  their  good  behaviour.  Monemvasia  belonged  to  their 
new  employer,  the  Emperor  Andronikos ;  it  had  been  stipulated  that  they 
should  receive  the  first  instalment  of  their  pay  there  ;  and  Muntaner17  tells 
us  that  the  Imperial  authorities  gave  them  a  courteous  reception  and  pro- 
vided them  with  refreshments,  including  probably  a  few  barrels  of  the  famous 

Monemvasia  fortunately  escaped  the  results  of  the  Catalan  expedition, 
which  proved  so  fatal  to  the  Duchy  of  Athens  and  profoundly  affected  the 
North  and  West  of  the  Morea.  Indeed,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourteenth 
century  the  corsairs  of  the  great  rock  seemed  to  have  actually  seized  the 
classic  island  of  Salamis  under  the  eyes  of  the  Catalan  rulers  of  Athens, 
whose  naval  forces  in  the  Saronic  Gulf  had  been  purposely  crippled  by  the 
jealous  Venetian  Government.  At  any  rate  we  find  Salamis,  which  had 
previously  belonged  to  Bonifacio  da  Verona,  the  baron  of  Karystos  in  Euboea, 
and  had  passed  with  the  hand  of  his  daughter  and  heiress  to  Alfonso 
Fadrique,  the  head  of  the  terrible  Catalan  Company  in  Attica,  now  paying 
tribute  to  the  Byzantine  governor  of  Monemvasia.18  When,  however, 
towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the  Greeks  began  to  recover  most 
of  the  Peloponnese,  the  city  which  had  been  so  valuable  to  them  in  the  earlier 
days  of  the  reconquest  of  the  Morea  had  to  compete  with  formidable  rivals. 
In  L897,  when  Theodore  I.  Palaiologos  obtained,  after  a  desperate  struggle, 
the  great  fortress  of  Corinth,  which  had  been  his  wife's  dowry  from  her 
father,  Xerio  Acciajuoli,  his  first  act  was  to  restore  the  Metropolitan  see  of 
that  ancient  city,  and  the  first  demand  of  the  restored  Metropolitan  was  for 
the  restitution  to  him  by  his  brother  of  Monemvasia  of  the  two  suffragan 
bishoprics  of  Zemenos  and  Maina,  which  had  been  given  to  the  latter's 
predecessor  after  the  Latin  conquest  of  Corinth.19  This  demand  was  granted, 
and  we  are  not  surprised  to  hear  that  the  Monemvasiotes  were  disaffected 
to  the  Despot,  under  whom  such  a  slight  had  been  cast  upon  their  Church. 
The  Moreat  archons  at  this  period  were  intensely  independent  of  the 
Despot  of  Mistra,  even  though  the  latter  was  the  brother  of  the  Emperor. 
The  most  unruly    of   them  all  was  Paul    Mamonas    of    Monemvasia,   who 

16  Lc  Lucre  de  la  Conqueste,  363  ;  Libro  de  los  [7  ('lis.  199,  201. 

/'    ios,   107  ;    Muntaner,    Cronaca,    ch.    117  ;  I8  Thomas,     Diplomatarium    Veneto-Levan- 

Burtholomaeus    de    Neocastro     and     Nieolaus  tinum,  i.  127. 

Specialis  apud  Muratori  Iter.  Ital.  Script,  xiii.  '•'  Miklosich  und  Miiller,  I.e. 

11-."  ;  :;.  959. 


belonged  to  the  great  local  family  which  had  been  to  the  fore  in  the  days  of 
Villehardouin.  This  man  held  the  office  of  'Grand-Duke'  or  Lord  High 
Admiral  in  the  Byzantine  hierarchy  of  officials  and  claimed  the  hereditaiy 
right  to  rule  as  an  independent  princelet  over  his  native  city,  of  which  his 
father  had  been  Imperial  governor.  When  Theodore  asserted  his  authority,  and 
expelled  the  haughty  archon,  the  latter  did  not  hesitate  to  arraign  him  before 
the  supreme  authority  of  those  degenerate  days — the  Sultan  Bajazet  I.  who 
ordered  his  immediate  restoration  by  Turkish  troops — a  humiliation  alike 
for  the  Greek  Despot  and  for  the  sacred  city  of  Hellenism.2'  Theodore  had. 
indeed,  at  one  time  thought  of  bestowing  so  unruly  a  community  upon  a 
Venetian  of  tried  merit  ;  and,  in  141!),  after  the  death  of  Paul's  son,  the 
Republic  appears  actually  to  have  come  into  possession  of  the  coveted  rock 
and  its  surroundings — then  a  valuable  commercial  asset  because  of  the 
Malmsey  which  was  still  produced  there.-1 

It  was  at  this  period  that  Monemvasia  produced  two  men  of  letters, 
George  Phrantzes  and  the  Monk  Isidore.  To  the  latter  we  owe  a  series  of 
letters,  one  of  which,  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Manuel  II.  on  the  occasion  of 
his  famous  visit  to  the  Morea  in  1415,  describes  his  pacification  of  Maina  and 
his  abolition  of  the  barbarous  custom  of  cutting  off  the  ringers  and  toes  of  the 
slain,  which  the  Mainates  had  inherited  from  the  Greeks  of  Aeschylus  and 
Sophocles.  He  also  alludes  to  the  Greek  inscriptions  which  he  saw  at 
Yitylo.--  Of  Phrantzes,  the  historian  of  the  Turkish  conquest,  the  secretary 
and  confidant  of  the  Palaiologoi,  the  clever  if  somewhat  unscrupulous 
diplomatist,  who,  after  a  busy  life,  lies  buried  in  the  quiet  church  of  SS. 
Jason  and  Sosipater  at  Corfu,  it  is  needless  to  speak.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
writer,  Phrantzes  should  hold  a  high  place  in  Byzantine  history.  His  style 
is  clear  and  simple,  compared  with  that  of  his  contemporary  Chalkokondyles, 
the  ornate  Herodotus  of  the  new  Persian  Conquest  ;  he  knew  men  and 
things;  he  was  no  mere  theologian  or  rhetorician,  but  a  man  of  affairs  :  and 
he  wrote  with  a  na'in/r,  which  is  as  amusing  as  it  is  surprising  in  one  of  his 
profession.  Monemvasia  maybe  proud  of  having  produced  such  a  man,  who 
has  placed  in  his  history  a  glowing  account  of  his  birthplace.  We  hear  too 
in  1540  of  a  certain  George,  called  'Count  of  Corinth'  but  a  uative  of 
Monemvasia,  who  had  a  fine  library,  and  among  the  many  Peloponnesian 
calligraphists,  the  so-called  '  Murmures,'  found  later  on  in  Italy  there  were 
some  Monemvasiotes.-* 

The  Venetians  did  not,  on  this  occasion,  long  retain  Monemvasia.  A 
few  years  later  we  find  it  in  the  possession  of  the  Despot  Theodore  II. 
Palaiologos,'24  who  ratified  its  ancient  privileges.  All  the  Despots  subjects, 
whether  freemen  or  serfs,  were  permitted  to  enter  or  leave  this  important 

-'    Phrantzes,  ;"7  :  Manuel  Palaiologos,  Theo-  '-"-'  Ne'us  'EWrjioui-iiuccv,  i.  269;  ii.  181. 

dori  Despoti  Laudatio  Funebris,  apud   Migne,  :    Montfaucon,  Palaeographia  Gr 

Patroloyia  Gfraeca,  clvi.  228  9  ;  Chalkokondyles,  'E\A7jro/ur7)jU">»'>  336-46. 
SO.  M  Miklosich  and  Muller,  v.  171-1  ;  napia*- 

21  Misti,    liii.    fol.    44,   'J56  ;  hi.    fol.    76  v.,  <ros,  vii.  A72-0. 
cited  by  Hopf,  cp.  dt.  lxxxvi,  79. 


city  without  let  or  hindrance,  except  only  the  dangerous  denizens  of 
Tzakonia  and  Vatika,  whose  character  had  not  altered  in  the  two  hundred  years 
which  had  elapsed  since  the  time  of  Villehardouin.  The  citizens,  their 
beasts,  and  their  ships  were  exempt  from  forced  labour;  and,  at  their  special 
request,  the  Despot  confirmed  the  local  custom,  by  which  all  the  property  of 
a  Monemvasiote  who  died  without  relatives  was  devoted  to  the  repair  of  the 
castle;  while,  if  he  had  only  distant  relatives,  one-third  of  his  estate  was  reserved 
for  that  purpose  (PI.  XVI.  A).  This  system  of  death  duties  (to  ciQuotiklov,  as  it 
was  called)  was  continued  by  Theodore's  brother  and  successor,  Demetrios, 
by  whom  Monemvasia  was  described  as  '  one  of  the  most  useful  cities  under 
my  rule.' 25  Such,  indeed,  he  found  it  to  be,  when,  in  1458,  Mohammed  II. 
made  his  first  punitive  expedition  into  the  Morea.  On  the  approach  of  the 
great  Sultan,  the  Despot  fled  to  the  rock  of  Monemvasia.  It  was  the 
ardent  desire  of  the  Conqueror  to  capture  that  famous  fortress,  '  the 
strongest  of  all  cities  that  we  know,'  as  the  contemporary  Athenian 
historian,  Chalkokondyles,-'1  called  it.  But  his  advisers  represented  to  him 
the  difficult  nature  of  the  country  which  he  would  have  to  traverse,  so  he 
prudently  desisted  from  the  enterprise.  Two  years  later,  when  Mohammed 
II.  visited  the  Morea  a  second  time  and  finally  destroyed  Greek  rule  in  that 
peninsula,  Monemvasia  again  held  out  successfully.  After  sheltering  Deme- 
trios against  an  attack  from  his  treacherous  brother  Thomas,  the  town  gave 
refuge  to  the  wife  and  daughter  of  the  former.  Demetrios  had,  however, 
promised  to  give  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  the  great  Sultan  ;  and  Isa,  son 
of  the  Pasha  of  Uskub,  and  Matthew  Asan,  the  Despot's  brother-in-law,  were 
accordingly  sent  to  demand  the  surrender  of  the  city  and  of  the  two 
princesses,  whom  it  contained.  The  Monemvasiotes  did,  indeed,  hand  over 
the  two  Imperial  ladies  to  the  envoys  of  the  Sultan  and  the  Despot;  but, 
relying  on  their  immense  natural  defences,  animated  by  the  sturdy  spirit 
of  independence  which  had  so  long  distinguished  them,  and  inspired  by  the 
example  of  their  governor,  Manuel  Palaiologos,  they  bade  them  tell 
Mohammed  not  to  lay  sacrilegious  hands  on  a  city  which  God  had  meant 
to  be  invincible.  The  Sultan  is  reported  to  have  admired  their  courage,  and 
wisely  refrained  from  attacking  the  impregnable  fortress  of  mediaeval 
Hellenism.  As  Demetrios  was  the  prisoner  of  the  Sultan,  the  Governor 
proclaimed  Thomas  as  his  liege jlord  ;  but  the  latter,  a  fugitive  from  Greece, 
was  incapable  of  maintaining  his  sovereignty  and  tried  to  exchange  it  with 
the  Sultan  for  another  sea-side  place.27  A  passing  Catalan  corsair,  one 
Lope  de  Baldaja,  was  then  invited  to  occupy  the  rock ;  but  the  liberty-loving 
inhabitants  soon  drove  out  the  petty  tyrant  whom  they  had  summoned  to 
their  aid,  and,  with  the  consent  of  Thomas,  placed  their  city  under  the 
protection  of  his  patron,  the  Pope.  Pius  II.  gladly  appointed  both  spiritual 
and  temporal  governors  of  the  fortress  which  had  so  Ions  been  the  stronghold 

Ibid.  iii.  258.  -'"  Chalkokondyles,  476,485;  Phrantzes,  396- 

P-   ll7-  97;  Spandugino  (ed.  1551),  14  5. 


of    Orthodoxy,    and     of     that     nationalism     with     which     Orthodoxy     was 


But  the  papal  flag  did  nut  wave  long  over  Monemvasia.  The  Orthodox 
Greeks  soon  grew  tired  of  forming  part  of  the  Pope's  temporal  dominion,  and 
preferred  the  rule  of  Venice,  the  strongest  maritime  power  interested  in  the 
Levant,  whose  governors  were  well  known  to  be  '  first  Venetians  and  then 
Catholics.'  The  outbreak  of  the  Turco-Venetian  War  of  1403,  and  the 
appearance  of  a  Venetian  fleet  in  the  Aegean,  gave  the  citizens  their  oppor- 
tunity. The  Pope,  as  Phrantzes  informs  us,  had  no  wish  to  give  up  the 
place ;  but  he  was  far  away,  his  representative  was  feeble,  the  flag  of  Venice 
was  for  the  moment  triumphant  in  Greek  waters,  and  accordingly  in  14G3  or 
1464,  the  inhabitants  admitted  a  Venetian 'garrison.  On  September  21, 
1404,  the  Senate  made  provision  for  the  government  of  this  new  dependency. 
A  Podestd  was  to  be  elected  for  two  years  at  an  annual  salary  of  500  gold 
ducats,  this  salary  to  be  paid  every  three  months  out  of  the  revenues  of  the 
newly-conquered  island  of  Lemnos.«- Six  months  later,  it  was  decreed  that 
in  case  there  was  no  money  available  for  the  purpose- at  Lemnos,  the  Podestd 
should  receive  his  salary  from  the  Cretan  treasury.-"  From  that  time  to 
1540  Monemvasia  remained  a  Venetian  colony.  Once,  indeed,  a  plot  was 
organised  in  the  ancient  city  of  the  Palaiologoi  for  the  purpose  of  wresting 
the  place  from  the  claws  of  the  Lion  of  St.  Mark.  Andrew  Palaiologos,  the 
still  more  degenerate  son  of  the  degenerate  Thomas,  had,  in  1494,  transferred 
all  his  Imperial  rights  and  claims  to  King  Charles  VIII.  of  France,  then 
engaged  in  his  expedition  to  Naples,  in  the  Church  of  San  Pietro  in  Montorio 
at  Rome.  In  accordance  with  this  futile  arrangement,  his  partisans  at 
Monemvasia,  where  the  Imperial  name  of  Palaiologos  was  still  popular, 
schemed  to  deliver  the  city  to  his  French  ally.30  But  the  plans  of  Charles 
VIII.,  and  with  them  the  plot  at  Monemvasia,  came  to  nought.  Venice 
remained  mistress  of  the  Virgin  fortress. 

Down  to  the  peace  of  1502-3,  Monemvasia  seems  to  have  been  fairly 
prosperous  under  Venetian  rule.  By  the  Turco-Venetian  treaty  of  1479  she 
had  been  allowed  to  retain  the  dependency  of  Vatika  :;1  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Cape  Malea,  which  had  been  captured  from  the  Turks  in  1463,  and  whore 
her  citizens  had  long  possessed  property.  But  the  territories  of  Monemvasia 
were  terribly  restricted  after  the  next  Turco-Venetian  war:  she  had  then 
lost  her  outlying  castles  of  Rampano  and  Vatika,  from  which  the  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  derived  much  of  their  dues  ;  and  we  find  the  inhabitants 
petitioning  the  Republic  for  the  redress  of  their  grievances,  and  pointing  out 

28  Magno,  Annul;  Veneti,  apud  Hopf,  I'hron-  1464.  ami  the  Venetian  documenl  above-quoted 
iqucs  Greco-romanes,  203-4;  Pii  II.  Com-  points  to  that  year ;  but  Malatesta's  secretary 
mcntari   103-104.  i"  his  account  of  the  war  (Sathas,  I.e.)  puts  it 

29  PhrantzSs,   11.".  ;  Magno,  204  ;  Sathas,  vi.  in  1463,  before  tin-  siege  of  Corinth. 
95  ;  Chalkokondyies,  556.     K  gina,  fol.  52,  56  Sanudo,  Diarii,  i.  703. 

(for  a  copy  of  which   I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  :l  Predelli,  Commemoriali,  v.  228 

Horatio  F.  Brown  :  see  Appendix),    The  actual  241  :  Miklosich  u.   Muller,  op.  cit.  iii.  2>'3-309. 

date  is  uncertain  ;  PhrantzSs  and  Magno  give 



that  this  last  delimitation  of  their  frontiers  had  deprived  them  of  the  lands 
which  they  had  been  wont  to  sow.  The  rock  itself  produced  nothing,  and 
accordingly  all  their  supplies  of  corn  had  now  to  be  imported  through  the 
Turkish  possessions.32  As  for  the  famous  vintage,  which  had  been  the  delight 
of  Western  connoisseurs,  it  was  no  longer  produced  at  Malvasia,  for  the  Turks 
did  not  cultivate  the  vineyards  which  were  now  in  their  hands,  and  most  of 
the  so-called  '  Malmsey,'  nihil  de  Malfasia  habens  scd  nomen,  as  worthy  Father 
Faber  says,  had  for  some  time  come  from  Crete  or  Modon,33  till  the  latter 
place,  too,  became  Turkish.  But,  in  spite  of  these  losses,  Monemvasia  still 
remained  what  she  had  been  for  centuries — an    impregnable   fortress,   the 

Fig.  3. — Kastro. 
(Photograph  by  Mr.  A.  J.  B.    Wacc.) 

Gibraltar  of  Greece.  The  Venetians  renewed  the  system,  which  had  prevailed 
under  the  Despots  of  the  Morea,  of  devoting  one  of  the  local  imposts  to  the 
repair  of  the  walls ;  the  Venetian  Podesta,  who  lived,  like  the  military 
governor,  up  in  the  castle,  seems  to  have  been  a  popular  official ;  and  the 
Republic  had  wisely  confirmed  the  special  privileges  granted  by  the  Byzantine 
Emperors  to  the  Church  and  Community  of  this  favoured  city  (Fig.  3).  Both 
a  Greek  Metropolitan  and  a  Latin  Archbishop  continued  to  take  their  titles 
from  Monemvasia,  and  the  most  famous  of  these  prelates  was  the  eminent 
Greek  scholar,  Marcus  Mousouros.     It  is  interesting  to  note   that  in   1521 

32  Sathas,    M^TjiUeTa  'EWrjviKrjs   'laropias,   iv. 
230;  Sanudo,  iJiurii,  xxix.  482. 

a3  Feyerabend,  Beyssbuch  des  Heyligens  Lands, 

fol.    182;    Faber,   Evagatorium,  iii.  314.      The 

name  was  so  long  preserved  that  a  wine-shop  in 
Venetian  dialect  was  called  'Malvasia.' 


Pope  Leo  X.  had  a  scheme  for  founding  an  academy  for  the  study  of  the 
Greek  language  out  of  the  revenues  of  whichever  of  these  sees  first  fell 
vacant,  as  Arsenios  Apostoles,  at  that  time  Metropolitan,  was  a  learned 
Greek  and  a  Uniate,  and  in  both  capacities  a  prime  favourite  of  the  classi- 
cally cultured  Pontiff.  In  1524,  however,  despite  the  thunders  of  the 
Oecumenical  Patriarch,  the  Greek  and  the  Italian  prelates  agreed  among 
themselves  that  the  former  should  retain  the  see  of  Monemvasia  and  that 
the  latter  should  take  a  Cretan  diocese.34  The  connexion  between  'the  great 
Greek  island '  and  this  rocky  peninsula  was  now  close.  The  Greek  priests  of 
Crete,  who  had  formerly  gone  to  the  Venetian  colonies  of  Modon  and  Coron 
for  consecration,  after  the  loss  of  those  colonies  in  1500  came  to  Monemvasia; 
the  Cretan  exchequer  continued  to  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  the  latter ; 
and  judicial  appeals  from  the  Podesid  of  Malmsey  lay  to  the  colonial  author- 
ities at  Candia,  instead  of  being  remitted  to  Venice ;  for,  as  a  Monemvasiote 
deputation  once  plaintively  said,  the  expenses  of  the  long  journey  had  been 
defrayed  by  pawning  the  chalices  of  the  churches.  Even  now  Monemvasia 
is  remote  from  the  world  ;  in  those  Venetian  days  she  was  seldom  visited, 
not  only  because  of  her  situation,  but  because  of  the  fear  which  ships 
captains  had  of  her  inhabitants.35 

The  humiliating  peace  of  1540,  which  closed  the  Turco-Venetian  war  of 
1537,  closed  also  the  history  of  Venice  in  the  Morea  till  the  brief  revival 
at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  This  shameful  treat}7  cost  the 
Republic  her  two  last  possessions  on  the  mainland  of  Greece — Nauplia 
and  Monemvasia,  both  still  uncaptured  and  the  latter  scarcely  assailed 
by  the  Turkish  forces.30  Admiral  Mocenigo  was  sent  to  break  as  best  he 
could  to  her  loyal  subjects  the  sad  news  that  the  Republic  had  abandoned 
their  homes  to  the  Turks.  The  Venetian  envoy,  if  we  may  believe  the  speech 
which  Paruta  puts  into  his  mouth,  repeated  to  the  weeping  people  the  ancient 
adage,  ubi  bene,  ibi  patria,  and  pointed  out  to  them  that  they  would  be  better 
off  in  a  new  abode  less  exposed  than  their  native  cities  had  been  to  the  Turkish 
peril.  In  November  a  Venetian  fleet  arrived  in  the  beautiful  bay  of  Nauplia 
and  off  the  sacred  rock  of  Monemvasia  to  remove  the  soldiers,  the  artillery, 
and  all  the  inhabitants  who  wished  to  live  under  Venetian  rule.  Then 
the  banner  of  the  Evangelist  was  lowered,  the  keys  of  the  two  last  Venetian 
fortresses  in  the  Morea  were  handed  to  Kassim  Pasha,  and  the  receipts  for 
their  transfer  were  sent  to  Venice.37 

The  inhabitants  of  the  two  cities  had  been  loyal  to  Venice,  and  Venice 
was  loyal  to  them.  The  first  idea  of  transporting  the  Mnnemvasiotes  to  the 
rocky  island  of  Cerigo — then  partly  a  Venetian  colon}"  and  partly  under  the 
rule  of  the  great  Venetian  family  of  Venier,  which  boasted  its  descent 
from  Venus,  the  fabled  goddess  of   Kythera — was  abandoned,  in  deference 

34  Sanudo,  Diarii,  vii.  714  ;  xxiii.  536  ;  xxiv.  Satlias,  i\\  2-24,  227,  229,  234  ;  Lamansky,  /.■  s 

669;    xxv.   64  ;  xxix.    402;  xxxi.    227  ;  xxxv.  Secrets  dc  F Elat  Jc  I'cnise.  [>.  059;  Feyerabend, 

363;  xliv.  475  ;  lv.  296  ;  Neos  'F.\\r)vonvr)txa>v,  op.  cit.  fol.  112. 

iii.  56.  3,i  l'redelli,  Commcmoriali,  vi.  236,  2    - 

33  Sanudo,    Diarii,    xi.    349;    xxxiii.     360  >  ;r  Paruta,  Historia  Venetiana,  L  451-3. 



to  the  eloquent  protests  of  the  Metropolitan,  and  lands  were  assigned 
to  the  exiles  in  the  more  fertile  colonies  of  the  Republic.  A  commission 
of  five  nobles  was  appointed  to  consider  the  claims,  and  provide  for  the 
settlement,  of  the  stradioti,  or  light  horsemen  from  Nauplia  and  Monem- 
vasia,  who  had  fought  like  heroes  against  the  Turks ;  and  this  commission 
sat  for  several  years,  for  the  claimants  were  numerous  and  not  all  genuine.38 
Some,  like  the  ancient  local  family  of  Daimonoyannes,  formerly  lords  of 
Cerigo,  received  lands  in  Crete,39  where  various  members  of  the  Athenian 
branch  of  the  great  Florentine  family  of  the  Medici,  which  had  been  settled 
for  two  hundred  years  at  Nauplia,  also  found  a  home.  Others  were  removed 
to  Corfu,  where  they  soon  formed  an  integral  part  of  the  Corfiote  population 
and  where  the  name  of  these  Stradioti  is  still  preserved  in  a  locality 
of  the  island  ;  while  others  again  were  transplanted  to  Cephalonia,  Cyprus,  or 
Dalmatia.  Not  a  few  of  them  were  soon,  however,  smitten  with  home- 
sickness; they  sold  their  new  lands  and  returned  to  be  Turkish  subjects  at 
Nauplia  and  Monemvasia.40 

The  Venetian  fortifications  ;  the  old  Venetian  pictures  on  the  eikonostasis 
of  the  'E\k6/j.€vo<;  church  ;  the  quaint  Italian  chimneys,  and  the  well-head  up 

Fig.  4. — Arms  on  Well-Head  in  the  Castle. 
(Sketch  by  Mrs.   Miller.) 

in  the  castle,  which  bears  the  winged  lion  of  St.  Mark,  two  private  coats  of 
arms,  the  date  MDXIV  and  the  initials  S  R  upon  it,  the  latter  those  of  Sebas- 
tiano  Rnnier,  Podcstd  from  1510  to  1512,  still  speak  to  us  of  this  first  Venetian 
occupation,  when  the  ancient  Byzantine  city,  after  the  brief  vicissitudes 
of  French  and  Papal  government,  found  shelter  for  nearly  eighty  years 
beneath  the  flag  of  the  Evangelist  (PL  XVI.  B  and  Fig.  4). 

William  Miller. 

:;s  Lami,  Dcliciac  Eriiditorum,  xv.  203  ; 
Sathas.  op.  cit.  viii.  310  3,  320  1,  335,  344, 
377  8,  441-3. 

'-'■'  Ibid.  312,  413.  450,  454. 
40  Ibid.  396. 


Two  Venetian  Documents  relating  to  the  Acquisition  of 

MONEMVASIA    I  .V    1464. 

I. — Regina  fol.  •">:!. 

mcccclxiiij  indictione  xij. 

I  >ie  xxi  Septembris. 

Cum  per  gratiam  omnipotentis  Dei  acquista  sit  in  partibus  grecie  insula  Staliminis 
dives  et  opulenta  in  qua  sunt  tres  terre  cum  Castellis  viz  Cochinum,  Mudrum  et  Paleo- 

rum  que  tempore  pacis  reddere  solent  ducatos  circa  xm.  Item  etiam  Cdvitas  Malvasie 
sita  in  Amorea.  Ad  quorum  locorum  bonam  gubernationem  et  conservationem  sub 
obedientia  nostri  Dominii  providendum  est  de  rectoribus  et  camerariis  e  venetiis  mittendis 
tarn  pro  populis  regendis  et  jure  reddendo  quam  pro  introitibus  earum  bene  gulieinandis  et 
non  perdendis  sicnt  Imeusque  dicitur  esse  factum  .... 

Eligatur  per  quattuor  manus  electionum  in  maioii  consilio  anus  potestas  Malvasie  cum 
salario  ducatorum  V.  auri  in  anno,  sit  per  duos  annos  tantum  ;  et  habeat  salarium  liberum 
cum  prerogativis  et  exemptionibus  rectoiis  Staliminis  et  similiter  in  contumacia  sua. 
Debeat  habere  duos  faniulcs  et  tres  equos  et  recipiat  salarium  suum  ab  insula  Staliminis  de 
tribus  mensibus  in  tres  menses  ante  tempus. 

fDe  parte 474 

De  non 14 

Non  syncere .....  9 

Die  xvij  Septembris  mcccclxiiij  in  conselio  di  xlta. 

De  parte        .         .         .         .         .         26 

De  non 0 

Non  sync.     .....  1 

II. — Regina  fol.  56. 
Die  iij  Marcii  1465. 
Captuni  est  in  maiori  Consilio  :  Quod  Rector  monouasie  elegendus  de   tubus  in  tres 
menses  habere  debeat  salarium  suum  a  loco  nostro  stalimnis  et  quum  facile  accidere  p 
per  magnas  impensas  <[Ua8  idem  stalimnis  locus  habet  quod  inde  salarium  ipsuni  suum 
habere  non  posset  .  .  .  Vadit  pars  quod  in  quantum    idem    rector    noster   monouasie    a 
Stalimnis  insula  salarium  ipsum  suum  habere  non  posset  juxta  formam  presentis  electionis 
sue  a  camera  nostra  crete  illud  percipere  debeat  sicuti  conueniens  et  honestum   est  de 
tribus  in  tres  menses  juxta  formam  presentis  ipsius. 

fDe  parte 573 

I  >e  non 39 

N ' > 1 1  syin  ere.         .        .        .         .         4-J 

W.   M. 

U.S. Vol..    XXVII. 


There  is  probably  no  subject  in  Greek  archaeology  which  has  afforded 
material  for  so  much  discussion  as  the  identification  and  arrangement  of  the 
sculptures  of  the  Parthenon,  and  at  first  sight  it  may  seem  presumptuous  at 
this  time  of  day  to  bring  forward  new  views.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  discussion  cannot  be  wholly  fruitless,  even  if  it  does 
no  more  than  bring  us  closer  into  touch  with  the  work  of  Pheidias  ;  and  even 
this  well-worn  path  is  not  a  mere  wandering  up  and  down,  but  sometimes 
leads  us  farther.  Jf  it  is  vouchsafed  to  us  by  taking  thought  only  to  add 
one  small  fragment  to  the  Frieze,  the  labour  is  not  in  vain.  And  so  I  have 
the  less  hesitation  in  returning  once  more  to  the  question  of  the  central 
groups  of  the  two  Pediments  of  the  Parthenon. 

Discussion  on  these  two  subjects  has  entered  (as  I  shall  hope  to  shew)  on 
a  new  phase  since  the  discovery  was  recently  made  that  we  must  remove  one 
of  the  figures  commonly  assigned  to  the  East  Pediment  and  place  it  in  the 
West.  It  is  now,  I  believe,  generally  admitted  that  the  supposed  Nike  of  the 
East  Pediment  does  not  belong  to  that  Pediment  at  all,  but  is  the  figure  shewn 
in  Carrey's  drawing  as  in  the  West  Pediment,  next  behind  the  Poseidon. 
Mr.  Arthur  Smith  has  recently  found  among  Lord  Elgin's  papers  at  Broome 
Hall  two  further  letters  from  Lusieri  and  Dr.  Hunt,  which  make  it  finally 
clear  that  the  torso  in  question  was  found  beneath  the  West  Pediment.  A 
summary  of  the  evidence,  which  seems  to  carry  conviction,  is  given  in  the  new 
edition  of  the  Parthenon  Guide,  p.  32. 

That  being  so,  it  is  fairly  obvious  that  this  torso  cannot  be  identified 
any  longer  as  Nike  ;  for  what  should  Victory  be  doing  in  the  train  of  the 
opponent  of  the  victorious  Athena  ?  Studniczka  (Jahrb.  1904,  p.  10)  suggests 
that  the  figure  is  Iris,  communicating  to  the  disputants  the  will  of  Zeus.  But 
the  same  objection  applies  equally  here  :  in  a  composition  where,  as  we  know, 
every  detail  had  its  value  both  as  composition  and  also  in  relation  to  the  subject 
represented,  what  significance  could  there  be  in  giving  Iris  such  a  place  ? 
The  hurried  movement  of  the  figure  suggests  that  she  is  advancing  against 
Athena;  in  any  case  both  her  position  and  her  action  would  be  appropriate 
bo  Eris,  the  personification  of  strife  ;  and  if  so,  the  expression  used  by  Pau- 
sanias  in  describing  this  Pediment  acquires  a  new  force  when  he  speaks  of 
the  '  Eris  of  Poseidon  against  Athena.' 


This,  however,  is  beside  the  present  purpose  :  the  fact  remains  that  this 
very  reasonable  innovation  leaves  us  without  a  figure  of  Victory  in  either 

And  yet,  when  we  consider  the  requirements  of  the  case,  and  the 
Athenian  habit  of  mind  in  relation  to  these  subjects,  as  we  can  judge  of  it 
from  contemporary  monuments,  we  must  see  that  at  this  period,  in  the 
representation  of  any  of  the  strenuous  moments  of  her  being,  the  presence 
of  Nike  is  essential.  On  the  Frieze,  in  the  peaceful  sociability  of  Athena's 
surroundings,  her  helmet  and  spear  are  cast  aside;  but  wherever  her  panoply 
is  donned,  Nike  cannot  be  far  away.  Even  in  the  other,  the  pacific  render- 
ing of  the  dispute  between  Athene  and  Poseidon,  as  shewn,  for  instance,  in  the 
Smyrna  relief  (Ath.  Mitth.  1882,  PI.  I.,  Fig.  2),  it  is  Nike  who  counts  the 
votes  :  and  in  an  Athenian  monument  of  the  importance  of  the  Parthenon  it 
is  hardly  probable  that  so  essential  a  feature  should  be  omitted. 

A  curious  illustration  of  this  tendency  is  shewn  in  a  red-figure  vase  in 
the  British  Museum  (E  410;.  It  dates  probably  from  the  latter  part  of  the 
first  half  of  the  fifth  century,  and  is  therefore  before  the  date  of  the  Parthenon. 
Here  the  birth  is  represented  in  the  old  traditional  way,  with  the  miniature 
Athena  leaping  from  Zeus's  head  :  the  artist  has  felt  so  strongly  the  necessity 
of  introducing  Nike  somehow  that  he  draws  her  on  the  extreme  margin  of 
the  scene.,  and  in  defiance  of  the  unities  represents  her  as  nearly  twice  the 
size  of  Athena  herself. 

The  necessity  of  Nike's  presence  in  the  West  Pediment  was  felt  long- 
ago  by  the  early  commentators;  thus  Visconti  identified  the  figure  who 
drives  the  chariot  of  Athena  as  a  'wingless  Victory,'  but  that  is  a  type 
which  is  unfamiliar  to  the  artists  of  the  Pheidian  period. 

There  is  yet  another  reason  why  Nike  must  be  predicated  for  the 
Pediments.  In  the  pedimental  compositions  of  the  fifth  century,  so  far  as 
we  have  them,  tradition  demanded  (as,  for  instance,  at  Olympia  and  Aeginai 
that  the  culminating  point  of  interest  should  concentrate  in  a  single  figure 
in  the  centre,  occupying  almost  the  entire  height  from  floor  to  apex.  Sauer's 
examination  of  the  marks  of  attachment  in  the  floors  of  the  Pediment  shews 
conclusively  that  Pheidias  adopted  a  different  principle  :  in  each  Pediment  we 
have  two  important  figures  balancing  each  other  on  each  side  of  the  apex. 
In  the  East  Pediment  Zeus  and  Athena  balance  as  they  do  in  the  Frieze  ;  in 
the  West,  Athena  and  Poseidon.  But  this  arrangement  leaves  a  gap  in  the 
apex  which  must  be  filled. 

What  is  more  important  still,  we  are  left  in  doubt  as  to  which  is  the 
predominant  figure  of  the  composition.  In  the  temple  of  Athena  it  would 
surely  be  made  clear  that  it  is  the  goddess  herself,  and  not  Poseidon  or  even 
Zeus,  who  holds  the  pride  of  place. 

Both  these  difficulties  are  overcome  by  the  introduction  of  a  small 
figure  of  Nike — not  so  large  as  to  make  her  structurally  difficult  to  insert, 
"i  to  give  her  undue  importance,  but  such  as  would  shew  clearly,  by  her 
inclination  towards  Athena,  that  here  is  the  important  moment  of  time  and 
place.     In   both  Pediments   the  rhythm   and   How  of  the  composition   takes 

B  2 



the  eye  inevitably  from  the  angles  to  the  apex ;  and  here  in  the  crown  and 
summit  of  things,  though  the  balance  till  now,  as  it  were,  was  even,  the  little 
satellite  of  Athena,  who  herself  is  Athena  Nike,  comes  with  no  uncertain 
voice  to  decide  the  issue. 

Fig.  l. — Scheme  of  Restoration  of  Central  Group  of  the  E.  Pediment  (after 

FURTWANGLER-REtCHHOLD,    Pi,.   20),    WITH   SaUER's    PLAN   OF   THE 

Floor  below. 

In  the  East  Pediment  there  is  a  certain  appropriateness  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  miniature  figure  at  this  point:  as  we  see  from  the  vase  pictures, 
tradition  before  Pheidias's  time  demanded  a  seated  Zeus  with  a  miniature 
Athena  springing  from  his  head.  Whether  Pheidias  was  or  was  not  the 
inventor  of  the  new  scheme  adopted  in  the  East  Pediment,  it  was,  we  know, 



an   innovation;  and  it  is  possible  that  Pheidias  may  have  felt  that  the  small 
Nike  here  would  be,  as  it  were,  a  concession  to  artistic  tradition. 

In  the  West   Pediment,  again,  a  Nike  introduced    to  mark  the    issue 
obviates  a    difficulty  which  has   always  been  felt.      Petersen,    for   instance 

FlG.    2. 

-Scheme  of   Restoration    of    Central    Group    of    me   W.  Pediment: 


Saueu's  Plan  of  the  Floor  below. 

(Hermes,  1882,  p.  131),  expressed  the  belief  that  Pheidias  had  succeeded  in 
rendering  victory  and  defeat  in  the  action  of  the  two  deities  without  recourse 
to  the  presence  of  judges,  which  he  regards  as  unfitted  for  sculpture,  although 
the  later  literature  assigned  as  judges  the  twelve  gods  or  the  Athenian  people  ; 
but  the  attitude  oi  the  groups  on  either  side  (as  A.  S.  Murray  pointed  out)  is 


certainly  not  judicial.  One  has  only  to  look  at  Schwerzek's  restoration  of  the 
Pediment  to  see  how  meaningless  the  whole  composition  becomes  when 
explained  in  this  way  and  with  no  central  Nike. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  monuments,  and  see  how  far  the  introduction 
of  Nike  is  borne  out  by  them.  But  first  I  should  like  to  remark  in  passing 
that  there  is  one  class  of  remains  which  has,  I  think,  been  somewhat  neglected 
in  this  connection.  I  mean  vase  paintings.  The  Kertch  vase  (which  I  shall 
come  to  presently)  is  mostly  regarded  as  telling  us  little  of  the  Pheidian 
West  Pediment,  although  it  remains  the  only  authority  we  have  for  it.  There 
is  one  class  of  Attic  vases  in  particular,  which  date  from  just  after  Pheidias, 
and  which,  oddly  enough,  are  nearly  all  found  in  the  Crimea,  which  are  full 
of  suggestions  of  motives  directly  or  indirectly  borrowed  from  the  Parthenon. 
I  see  no  reason  why  the  humbler  handicraftsmen  who  painted  the  vases  should 
not  have  been  proud  to  reproduce  the  sculptural  types  which  were  their 
national  glory.  I  believe  we  shall  find  that  this  track  is  worth  following  and 
I  have  here  one  or  two  examples  which  at  least  seem  to  throw  light  on  the 
central  group  of  the  East  Pediment. 

First,  however,  in  order  to  recall  the  composition  that  we  may 
expect,  let  me  call  attention  to  the  marble  well-head  from  Madrid,  which 
is  now  generally  accepted  as  giving  the  most  satisfactory  rendering  of 
the  main  features  of  Pheidias's  composition.  The  positions  of  Zeus  and 
Athena  are  shewn  by  the  marks  still  existing  in  the  floor  of  the  Pediment 
to  be  approximately  identical,  but  the  question  of  comparative  scale  raises 
a  difficulty.  The  head  of  Zeus,  though  he  is  seated,  is  on  the  same  level  as 
that  of  Athena,  so  that  if  he  stood  up  he  would  be  on  a  much  larger  scale. 
But  the  artist  of  the  puteal  is  only  following  out  the  principle  of  isocephalism 
commonly  observed  in  all  frieze  composition,  and  especially  so  in  the  Frieze 
of  the  Parthenon.  It  does  not  at  all  follow — indeed,  it  is  extremely  unlikely, 
that  the  same  principle  would  be  observed  in  a  pedimental  composition  in 
the  round,  for  the  carefully  adjusted  balance  of  right  and  left,  a  balance 
minutely  calculated  in  every  other  group  of  the  Pediment,  would  thereby  be 

The  true  arrangement  (Fig.  1)  is  shewn  on  a  vase  picture  (Furtwangler- 
Reichhold  Taf.  20)  in  which,  though  the  subject  is  not  the  Birth  of  Athena, 
the  central  group  is  clearly  a  reproduction  of  the  Pheidian.  The  types  of 
Zeus  and  of  Athena  are  both  precisely  what  we  should  expect  of  Pheidias  : 
note  especially  the  helmet  of  Athena  and  the  gorgeous  woven  peplos  that 
she  wears.  And  one  sees  at  once  how  admirably  the  whole  is  adapted  to  the 
rei|uirements  of  the  centre  of  a  pediment.  As,  however,  the  vase  artist  is 
not  confined,  as  the  sculptor  was,  to  an  angle  on  the  upper  border,  he  has 
probably  slightly  modified  his  Nike,  who  would  naturally  (as  on  the  puteal) 
have  flown  more  directly  towards  Athena.  The  figure  of  Athena,  on  the 
other  hand,  which  in  the  puteal  moves  rapidly  to  the  right,  is  here  in  a  more 
probable  position. 

A  curious  detail  of  perspective,  by  the  way,  is  worth  noting:  the  vase 
artist  for  no  apparent  reason  has  drawn  the  underside  of  Zeus's  throne    in 



such  a  way  as  it  would  be  seen  from  below.    Is  it  possible  that  this  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  artist  was  actually  so  copying  the  pedimental  group  from  below  ? 

A  slight  modification  of  the  same  group  appears  on  another  contempor- 
ary vase  (Fig.  31),  where  Nike  is  shewn  'in  what  is  more  likely  to  have  been 
1   From  Comptes  Bendus  de  la  Comm.  Imp.       Archiol.  I860,  PI.  II. 


her  true  direction.  An  interesting  feature  of  this  vase  is  the  introduction 
of  other  Pheidian  motives,  which  though  modified  are  unmistakeable.  On 
the  right  we  have  a  woman  riding  on  a  horse,  which  naturally  suggests  the 
Xyx  or  Selene  of  the  right-hand  angle  of  the  Pediment  ;  and  on  the  left  a 
group  of  three  women,  who  in  their  relative  positions  strongly  suggest  the 
group  of  the  three  Fates. 

Turning  now  to  the  West  Pediment  (Fig.  2),  the  most  complete  document 
wre  have  is  the  drawing  made  in  1683  for  the  Marquis  de  Nointel.  The 
drawing  is  badly  executed  and  the  figures  overcrowded,  hut  it  gives  a  good 
general  idea  of  the  central  group.  Comparing  this  with  the  vase  from  Kertch, 
we  see  how  closely  the  artist  has  followed  his  original :  the  miniature  temple 
in  the  corner  (a  most  unusual  feature  in  a  vase  painting)  can,  I  think,  be 
nothing  else  than  the  artist's  shorthand  method  of  acknowledging  the  source 
of  his  design.  It  wall  be  noted  that  Athena  turns  partly  away  from  her 
adversary,  and  both  are  very  definitely  striking  downwards :  probably 
Pheidias  would  have  wished  to  make  it  clear  that  the  hisrh  o-ods  are  not 
engaged  in  turning  their  weapons  against  each  other.  The  existence  of  the 
olive  tree  is  attested  by  fragments  that  remain  ;  and  like  a  bird  out  of  its 
branches  comes  the  little  Nike  with  the  victor's  wreath  or  riband  for  Athena. 
Whatever  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  Nikai  in  East  and  West  may  have 
been,  it  is  clear  that  there  was  scope  for  the  avoidance  of  sameness  in  a  com- 
parison, just  as  in  the  general  composition  there  is  general  responsion  with 
contrast  of  detail :  so  the  one  Nike  flies  free  from  the  apex  with  partial 
inclination  to  the  right;  the  other  flies  with  inclination  to  the  left  out  of  the 
branches  of  an  olive  tree.  The  group  of  Athena  and  Nike  reappear  on 
another  vase  of  the  same  series. 

The  question  that  now  remains  is  a  practical  one  :  Have  we  any  frag- 
ments which  can  be  identified  with  these  two  Nikai,  and  how  were  the  figures 
attached  ? 

As  regards  the  second  point,  the  question  has  been  considered  by  Dorp- 
feld,  a  practical  authority,  who  sees  no  inherent  difficulty  as  regards  the  East 
Pediment  in  supporting  a  Nike  on  metal  standards  which  would  be  cramped 
to  the  tympanum  or  floor;  in  the  West  Pediment  the  olive  tree  would  give 
plenty  of  scope  for  the  concealment  of  such  cramps.  If  the  figures  of  Nike 
were  of  marble,  it  is  possible  that  among  the  fragments  of  large  and  small 
wings  in  the  Acropolis  Museum  which  are  said  to  belong  to  the  Pediment 
sculptures  portions  of  their  wings  may  yet  be  found.  I  am  inclined  to  think 
that  the  Nikai  may  have  been  of  some  other  material,  such  as  bronze — among 
the  many  bronze  enrichments  of  the  sculptures  throughout  the  Parthenon 
such  a  material  for  a  small  figure  would  not  be  out  of  place  ;  and  in  the 
vase  pictures  of  the  time  the  practice  commonly  occurs  of  detaching  this 
class  of  figure  (Eros  or  Nike),  when  in  a  central  position,  by  a  wash  of  white 
or  of  gold. 

(  !ecil  Smith. 

J.   H    S.     VOL.   XXVII.     (1907).     PL.  XVII 

J.   H.  S.     VOL.   XXVII.     (1907).     PL.   XVIII. 

J.   H.  S.     VOL.   XXVII.     (1907)      PL.  XIX. 

J    H    S.   VOL.   XXVII.  (1907).     PL.  XX. 


[Plates  XVII-XX.] 

A. —  The  Javelin   and  tfa    Amentum^ 

The  javelin  used  in  Greek  sports  is  called  variously  a/ccov,  ukovtlov, 
fieac'r/Kv\or.  ai~/vvvos,  uttoto/xc'k;.  The  latter  term,  defined  by  Hesychius 
as  o-xt&v  kcii  ukovtlov  irevrd9\ov,  appears  to  denote  merely  a  lath  or  stick, 
and  -apparently  describes  the  javelin  as  represented  on  the  vases.  It  is 
merely  a  straight  pole,  in  length  nearly  equal  to  the  heigh;  of  a  man.  though 
occasionally  lunger,  and  about  the  thickness  of  a  finger.  It  is  one  of  the 
commonest  objects  in  palaestra  scenes,  whether  in  use,  or  carried  in  the  hand, 
or  planted  in  the  ground  singly  or  in  pairs  apparently  to  mark  the  line  from 
which  the  athlete  is  to  jump  or  throw  the  diskos.1  These  rods  were 
formerly  described  as  jumping  poles:  but  of  the  pole  jump  there  is  no 
evidence,  and  the  fact  that  they  are  precisely  similar  to  javelins  which  are 
actually  being  thrown,  and  that  they  often  have  the  throwing-strap  or  amentum 
attached,  proves  that  they  are  nothing  more  than  javelins.  At  the  same 
time  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  have  served  a-  measuring-rods 
or  Kavove?  for  measuring  the  jump,  a  use  which  is  perhaps  represented  on 
the  British  Museum  kelebe  B.  SGI.  published  in  vol.  xxiv.  of  this  journal, 
p.  18o. 

The  athletic  javelin  is  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  pointless.  <  >u  early 
black-figured  vases,  such  as  the  kelebe  just  mentioned,  or  the  B.  M.  lekythos 
B.  576  published  in  this  volume,  PI.  II,  the  javelin  is  represented  by  a  black 
line  which  does  seem  to  taper  at  the  ends,  but  this  is  a  mere  accident  of 
technique,  the  natural  result  of  a  line  drawn  rapidly  with  a  single  stroke  of 
brush  or  pen.  On  the  red-figured  vases  and  Panathenaic  vases,  the  rod  is  of 
uniform  length  and  usually  ends  square.  Sometimes  indeed  it  appeal 
have  a  blunt  cap  or  ferule,  indicated  by  a  thickening  of  the  end.  or  by  a  black 
patch,  or  bylines  which  represent  the  binding  by  which  it  is  attached.-'  Such 
are  the  javelins  and  spears  which  Xenophon  recommends  cavalry  soldiers  to 
use-  in  practice,  provided  with  a  round  end  ia^aipw/xeia)  '•  which  corresponds 
to  the  button  on  the  modern  foil  or  bayonet.  Such  a  cap  served  not  only  for 
protection  but   to  give  the  necessary    weight    to   the    head    of  the  javelin, 

1  v.  p.  11  ol  this  volume:    also  vol.   xxiv.       Fig. 

p.  186.  3  !'■  viii.  10. 

2  Juthner,     Antih      Titrngcrathc,     p. 



without  which  it  would  not  fly  properly.  It  was  probably  universal,  the 
omission  of  the  lines  or  shading  that  indicate  it  being  due  to  the  vase- 
painter's  carelessness.  We  cannot  however  ascribe  to  the  same  cause  the 
omission  of  the  point,  seeing  that  in  hunting  and  fighting  scenes  the  javelin 
has  almost  invariably  a  long  leaf-shaped  metal  head ;  and  we  may  therefore 
safely  conclude  that  the  blunt  javelin  was  generally  used  for  practice,  espe- 
cially for  distance  throws.  For  target  practice  sharp  javelins  were  naturally 
used,  as  is  proved  by  the  speech  of  Antiphon  in  defence  of  a  youth  who,  missing 
the  mark,  accidentally  hit  and  killed  a  companion.4  Moreover,  on  two  of  the 
three  vases  which  represent  javelin  throwing  on  horseback  at  a  target,  the  jave- 
lins have  all  long  leaf-like  points,  such  as  we  see  in  hunting  scenes.5  A  similar 
head  is  roughly  represented  on  an  early  b.-f.  hydria  in  the  British  Museum 
B.  326,  where  we  see  two  athletes  carrying  javelins;  but  of  the  five  weapons  only 

Fig.  1.—  Various  Methods  of  attaching  the  Amentum. 

a.  Vase  of  Hieron  (Pollak,  Zicci  Vasen  Hierons).    b.  B.M.  Kylix,  E  58.     e.  B.M.  Lekythos,  E  698. 

d.   B.M.  Kylix,  E  96.     c.  Alexander  Mosaic :  Jiithner,  Fig.  38.    /.  B.M.  Amphora,  E  316. 

one  is  pointed.  Somewhat  similar  is  the  javelin  on  a  well  known  Chiusi  wall- 
painting,  while  on  the  Lateran  mosaic  occurs  a  barbed  javelin  head.1'  On  the 
Berlin  bronze  diskos  the  javelin  has  a  long  thin  point  attached  to  it  by 
a  socket,  and  similar  points  occur  on  a  few  r.-f.  vases.7  These  however  are 
but  isolated  examples,  and  the  enormous  preponderance  of  the  blunt  javelins 
justifies  the  conclusion  that  though  for  target  practice  the  sharp  javelin  was 
used,  the  blunt  one  was  preferred  for  distance  throwing,  and  that  down  to  the 
close  of  the  5th  century  distance  throwing  was  more  general  than  throwing 
at  a  target. 

Whether  pointed  or  blunt  the  javelin  was  evidently  a  light  object,  and 
Anacharsis  contemptuously  contrasts  it  with  the  more  serviceable  weapons 

4  Tctralogia,  ii.  2. 

5  v.  infr.  Fig.  16  and  PI.  XX. 

6  Jiithner,  op.  cit.  p.  39,  Fig.  33  ;  Schrciber- 

Anderson,  Atlas,  xxii.  9. 
7  Jiithner,  Figs.  20,  40. 


which  are  not  carried  about  by  the  wind.8  It  was  thrown  by  means  of  a 
tlmiig  called  dyfcvXr),  or  amentum,  fastened  near  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the 
javelin,  which  was  therefore  called /xeo-dy/cvXov.  The  amentum  was  a  leathern 
thong  a  foot  or  eighteen  inches  in  length,  if  we  mayjudge  from  the  numerous 
representations  of  an  akontistes  holding  an  amentum  loose  in  one  hand  and  a 
javelin  in  the  other.'-'  It  was  bound  firmly  round  the  shafl  of  the  javelin  in 
such  a  way  as  to  Leave  free  a  Loop  3  or  4  inches  long,  in  wliich  the  thrower 
inserted  his  first,  or  firsl  and  middle  fingers.  The  point  of  attachment  was 
the  centre  of  gravity,  in  the  light-headed  javeliu  of  the  athlete  almost  in  the 
centre  of  the  shaft,  in  the  more  formidable  weapon  of  war  or  the  chase 
generally  nearer  the  head.  Its  place  varied  also  according  as  the  javelin 
was  to  be  thrown  for  distance  or  at  a  mark.  By  putting  the  ameutum 
behind  the  centre  of  gravity  it  is  possible  to  increase  the  distance  thrown, 
but  at  a  sacrifice  of  accuracy.  Hence  the  amentum  was  detachable, 
and  the  athlete  fastened  it  to  suit  his  taste  shortly  before  use  <  m 
the  r.-f.  hydria  in  the  British  Museum,  K  164,  published  on  p.  32  of 
this  volume,  we  see  a  youth  sitting  on  the  ground  in  the  act  of  attaching 
the  amentum.  On  a  Wiirzburg  r.-f.  kylix  published  by  Jiithner 
youth  is  bending  down  winding  the  amentum  round  the  shaft,  while  he 
holds  the  other  end  tight  with  his  foot.  It  was  as  we  shall  see  essential 
that  the  thong  should  be  securely  fastened.  The  vase-paintings  are 
too  minute  to  show  precisely  how  the  amentum  was  fastened,  but  tbey 
suggest  a  considerable  variety  of  ways,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  examples 
given  in  Fig.  1.  The  clearest  example  is  that  shown  on  the  Alexander 
mosaic  in  Naples.  In  every  case  it  is  only  the  actual  loop  which  is  Left 

The  amentum  served  various  purposes.  In  the  first  place  it  enabled  the 
thrower  to  give  a  rotatory  motion  to  the  javelin,  wliich  not  only  helped  it  to 
keep  its  direction,  acting  on  it  in  the  same  way  as  the  rifling  of  a  gun  on  a 
bullet,  but  also  increased  its  carry  and  its  penetrating  power.  For  this  reason 
the  modern  savage  habitually  puts  a  spin  on  his  weapon  by  a  movemenl  of 
the  fingers,  which  however  are  not  so  effective  as  the  thong.  The  manner  in 
which  the  amentum  acts  is  shown  in  the  illustrations  reproduced  from 
Jiithner  in  Fig.  4  a,  b.  The  carry  was  further  increased  by  the  additional 
Leverage  given  to  the  thrower's  arm.  The  amentum  also  served  to  mark 
the  point  at  which  the  javelin  was  to  be  grasped,  a  matter  . . t  considerable 
importance  in  war  or  in  the  chase,  when  there  is  no  time  to  adjust  the 
weapon  carefully.  In  javelins  and  spears  used  by  savages  at  the  present 
day  this  point  is  often  marked  by  some  sort  of  binding.  Such  binding 
cle.uly  shown  on  the  long  spear  held  by  Athena  on  the  British  Museum  r.-f. 
amphora  E  316,  a  portion  of  which  is  shown  in  Fig.  1  f.     Lastly,  the  amentum 

s  Lucian,  Anackarsis,  32.  ivhere  and  commonly  described  as  com 

:l  Juthuer,  p.  40,  Fi<,rs.  34,  :!.">,  36.     Jiithner  are  merely  amenta,  somewhat  misdrawn. 

proves  conclusively  that  the  objects  represented  Op.  cit.  Fig.  :'>7. 

on  the  Panaetius  kylix  ('-.   infr.  Fig.    12)  ami 



afforded  a  convenient  handle,  also  a  matter  of  some  practical  importance. 
Hence  it  was  sometimes  attached  to  long  spears  not  intended  primarily  for 
throwing.  Spears  are  sometimes  provided  with  a  short  loop  or  sling  for 
this  purpose  only.11 

From  these  considerations  it  is  obvious  that  the  amentum  was  not  as  is 
sometimes  stated  the  invention  of  the  gymnasium,  but  was  adopted  by 
the  gymnasium  from  war  and  the  chase.  This  is  abundantly  proved  by  the 
monuments.  Whether  it  was  used  in  Homeric  times,  is  uncertain.  The  prin- 
ciple of  the  sling  was  certainly  known  to  the  Homeric  shepherd,1'2  and  besides 
the  SoXixoaKiov  ey^o?  of  the  chieftain,  there  was  apparently  a  lighter  and 
shorter  weapon,  the  alyavei],  which  is  closely  associated  with  the  bow,  and 
like  the  bow  was  used  for  hunting,  and  by  the  common  soldiery  in  war  and  in 

Fig.  2.— Interior  of  B.-F.  Kylix.     B.M.  B  380. 

sport.13  But  there  is  no  evidence  in  Homer  that  the  principle  of  the  sling 
was  applied  to  the  alyavet].  The  warrior  vase  from  Mycenae14  however 
clearly  shows  two  types  of  spear,  a  long  spear  carried  with  clenched  fist,  and  a 
short  spear  raised  almost  at  arm's  length  behind  the  head,  with  the  point 
somewhat  downwards,  in  a  position  commonly  represented  in  hunting  scenes. 
The  hand  is  sharply  pointed  as  if  the  fingers  were  extended,  and  a  com- 
parison of  the  way  in  which  the  spear  is  held  with  the  hold  shown  in 
Figs.  G  and  7  confirms  Jiithner's  view  that  the  artist  intended  to  represent 
a  weapon  thrown  with  the  amentum. 

From  the  sixth  century  onwards  the  amentum  was  used  in  war,  in  the 

"   Possibly  the  Hasta   Ansata  is  such,    but 
v.  infr.  p.  255.     Such  spears  are  known  among 

tin-  Indians,  r.  Egerton  Arms  of  the  Indians, 
Figs.  2,  No.  6  ;  72,  No.  2.".. 

12  r.  p.  5  of  this  volume  (the-  Ka\avpo\p) ;  ep. 
//.    xiii.    600.     Slingers  are  represented   on   a 

fragment  of  a  silver  vessel  from  Mycenae. 

13  77.  xvi.  589,  ii.  774.  Wc  may  note  that 
both  Odysseus  and  Nestor  speak  of  their  skill 
Sovpi,  not  aKovricj).   00.  viii.  229  ;  //.  xxiii.  637. 

14  Schliemaun-Schuchardt  (Eng.  Trans.), 
Figs.  284.  5. 


cliase,  and  in  athletics.  A  few  examples  will  suffice.  On  a  Corinthian  b.-f. 
lekythos  in  Berlin  showing  the  various  pieces  of  a  hoplite's  armour  there  stands 
side  by  side  with  the  long  spear  a  shorter  weapon  provided  with  a  sort 
of  loop.15  The  use  of  the  amentum  is  clearly  shown  on  a  Chalcidian 
b.-f.  kylix  in  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  2).  As  is  often  the  case  the  artist 
has  made  a  mistake  in  drawing  the  fingers  :  the  first  and  middle  fingers 
should  have  been  passed  through  the  loop,  not  the  other  two.  The  warrior 
is  perhaps  about  to  throw  the  spear  with  a  short  underhand  throw,  a 
throw  in  which  certain  savages  are  extraordinarily  skilful  and  for  which 
the  amentum  woidd  be  most  useful.  Another  Corinthian  vase,  in  the 
British  Museum,  B  37,  shows  a  delightful  hunting  scene.  Several 
javelins  fitted  with  amenta  are  seen  sticking  in  the  boar's  back,  clearly 
proving  that  the  amentum  was  fixed  to  the  javelin  and  did  not  remain 
in  the  thrower's  hand.  On  yet  another  archaic  vase,  to  which  Mr.  Cecil 
Smith  has  called   my  attention,  a   javelin   fitted  with  the  amentum  is  flying 

Fig.  3. — From  the  Feanc/ois  Vase.     (From  Furtwangler,  Vasenmalerei  XIII.) 

through  the  air,  and  the  artist  to  produce  a  sense  of  velocity  has  given 
the  shaft  a  wavy  appearance.10  Lastly  on  the  Francois  vase  we  see  a 
pair  of  warriors  with  their  fingers  in  the  amentum  about  to  throw  their 
spears  (Fig.  3),  who  in  the  position  of  the  hands  and  fingers,  and  the  whole 
attitude,  closely  resemble  the  akontistes  in  Fig.  10,  save  that  on  the  latter  vase 
the  head  is  turned  backward,  a  position  obviously  inadvisable  for  a  hunter 
or  warrior.  As  an  early  example  of  the  amentum  in  athletic  scenes  we 
may  take  the  akontistes  on  the  b.-f.  stamnos  in  the  Museo  Qregoriano 
(Fig.  7). 

A  javelin  thrown  by  a  thong  is  necessarily  a  light  weapon,  but  though 
light  the  akontion  used  in  war  and  in  the  chase  was  decidedly  formidable, 
and  could  be  used  effectively  not  only  for  throwing  but  for  stabbing. 
For  the  latter  purpose  it  could  be  held  either  with  clenched  fist  or  with 
the  amentum.  Some  of  the  figures  on  the  Francois  vase  for  example  (Fig.  3) 
have  their  javelins  raised  behind  their  heads  like  the  warriors  on  the  Myc 

'•'  Jiithner,  Fig.  51,  Berlin  3148.  ";  Arch.  /.  38      .'1.  X. 


vase  as  if  to  stab ;  the  hands  are  clenched  and  there  is  no  sign  of  the 
amentum.  The  type  is  a  common  one  on  vases  of  all  periods.  That  the 
amentum  would  afford  a  useful  grip  both  for  throwing  and  stabbing  is  clear 
from  the  hunting  scenes  represented  in  Gerhard's  Apulische  Vasenbilder, 
PL  A.  • 

If  the  akontion  could  be  used  for  thrusting,  the  long  spear  could 
on  occasion  be  thrown.  The  Homeric  warrior  sometimes  hurled  his 
hoXixocncLov  e'7%09,  and  so  did  the  hoplite  of  the  fifth  century.  The  long 
spear  is  even  represented  sometimes  with  an  amentum,  for  example  on 
the  British  Museum  r.-f.  lekythos  E  698,  on  which  is  drawn  a  female 
figure,  possibly  Eudaimonia,  holding  in  her  hand  a  long  spear,  or  on  the  vase 
of  Hieron  from  which  the  detail  of  Fig.  1  a  is  taken.17  How  far  this  practice 
was  general,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  The  amentum  is  a  detail  only  occasionally 
inserted  by  the  vase-painters  whether  on  javelin  or  spear,  and  even  when 
inserted  the  thin  lines  which  indicate  it  are  very  liable  to  wear  away. 
Certainly  the  primary  use  of  the  long  spear  was  for  thrusting  :  the  hoplite 
could  not  afford  to  risk  its  loss  and  would  rarely  throw  it.  The  amentum 
therefore  if  generally  attached  served  probably  rather  as  a  handle  than  as 
an  amentum  proper. 

The  lono-  heavy  spear  was  the  weapon  of  the  fifth  century  :  the  real 
importance  of  the  javelin  dates  from  the  closing  years  of  the  Peloponnesian 
war,  when  the  value  of  light-armed  troops  and  cavalry  began  to  be  realized. 
The  light-armed  troops  were  mostly  mercenaries,  Lydians,  Mysians, 
Arcadians,  Aetolians,  Thessalians,  Thracians.18  All  these  races  were  skilled 
in  the  use  of  the  javelin.  That  the  peltasts  threw  the  javelin  by  means  of 
the  amentum  is  clear  from  Xenophon.  In  the  passage  of  the  Ten  Thousand 
through  the  mountainous  territory  of  the  Carduchi,  the  Greeks  he  tells  us 
picked  up  the  long  arrows  of  the  enemy  and  used  them  as  javelins  fitting- 
thongs  to  them  (evay/cvXcovres).10  Elsewhere  he  orders  the  peltasts  guarding 
the  rear  to  advance  with  their  fingers  in  the  amentum  (8niyKv~\.i<r/jt,evou<i) 
ready  to  throw. 

The  javelin  was  not  confined  to  the  mercenaries :  at  Athens  it  was  the 
special  weapon  of  the  ephebos,  who  is  generally  represented  holding  a  pair  of 
javelins.  PL  XVII.  gives  a  typical  picture  of  the  Athenian  ephebos. 
In  the  third  century  special  trainers  called  uKovnarat  were  engaged 
to  train  the  epheboi  in  the  use  of  the  javelin.20  Competitions  were 
held  at  Athens  and  elsewhere  in  throwing  the  javelin  both  at  a  mark 
and  for  distance,  both  on  foot  and  on  horseback.-1  In  the  vases  representing 
the  latter  contest  the  amentum    is  not  shown,  but  its  use    is    implied   by 

J<  The     anient  11111      occurs     frequently     on  19  Anab.  iv.  2.  28,  iv.  3.  28,  v.  2.  12. 

Hieron's  vases,  e.g.  on  a  r.-f.  kotyle  represent-  '-'"  Ditt.  Syll.2  ii.  520,  521  ;  cp.  522  of  Ceos, 

ing  Achilles  and  Briseis  in  the  Louvre,  M.d.I.  523  of  Teos. 

vi.   19;  on  a  kylix  representing  Theseus  and  -'  Ditt.  Syll-  ii.   522,   668,  670,  671,   672, 

Aethra,  Hermitage,  830,  Harrison  and  MacColl  673,671;  Inscr.  Or.   Gr.   339;  I.G.   vi.  441; 

Greek  I                tings,  PL  XXII.  Ath.  Mitth.  xxx.  1905,  p.  213. 

13  Dar.-Sagl.  s.v.  jaculum,  p.  594. 


the  fingering  of  the  javelin,  and  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  representa- 
tion of  a  cavalry  skirmish  on  an  embossed  swordbelt  found  at  Watsch 
in  Carinthia,  where  the  spears  flying  through  the  air  are  all  provided 
with  a  loop,22  or  that  on  a  vase  from  the  Acropolis  described  below  (Fig.  E 

B. — The  Distribution  of  the  Amentum. 

The  Romans  are  said  to  have  borrowed  the  amentum  from  the  Greeks.23 
But  the  evidence  of  its  distribution  seems  to  render  this  statement  highly 
improbable.     The  amentum  was  widely  known  in  Italy  at  an  early  date.     It 
was  certainly  known  to  the  Etruscans,  being  represented    on    an  Etruscan 
warrior's  spear  in  a   tomb  at   Caere,  while  in  another  tomb  at  Ohiusi  an 
Etruscan  athlete  is  depicted  in  a  typical  position,  putting  his  fingers  through 
the  loop.-4     From  other  tombs  and  from  vases  representing  Italian  warr      - 
we   learn  that  the  Samnites  and   Messapians  used  the  amentum.-5     Avery 
interesting  painting  found  in  a  tomb  at  Paestum  represents  a  fight  between 
two  warriors,  each  armed  with  a  shield  and  two  javelins,  fitted  with  a  sort  of 
semicircular  loop.2"     Two  of  the  javelins  have  been  thrown,  one  of  them  is 
sticking   in   the   left  hand   warrior's    shield.     The    other   has    pierced    right 
through  his  opponent's  calf,  so  that  its  point  projects  on  the  other  side.     With 
their  remaining  javelins  they  are  preparing  to  stab  one  another.     They  hold 
the   javelins  with   clenched   fists,  but  in  only  one   case   is  the  thong  visible, 
forming  a  loop  over  the  holder's  hand  but  certainly  not  used  as  an  amentum 
proper.     Hence  the  javelins  have  been  identified  with  the  hastae  ansatae 
mentioned  by  Ennius.     But  whether  the  object  represented  is  an  amentum 
or  ansa,   or  whether  the  amentum  is  the  same  as  the  ansa  or  different,  we 
cannot  say.     I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  amentum  did  at  times  sen 
a    handle    or  ansa,  and   that    the    object    represented    is    intended    for    the 
amentum,  for  which   ansa   is   merely   another  name.     But    though  there  is 
evidence  of  the  wide  distribution  of  the  amentum  in  Italy  at  an  early  date, 
there  is  no  evidence  of  its  use  in  the  Roman  armies.     It  is  stated  indeed  that 
the    hasta    velitaris    used    by    the   light-armed    troops   was    thrown    by    the 
amentum,  but  I  do  not  know  on  what  evidence.     Certainly  the  characteristic 
Roman  weapon  was  the  heavy  pilum,  and  Livy  in  his  account  of  the  battle 
of  Magnesia  expressly  contrasts  tin'   heavy  weapons  of  the  Roman  soldiers 
and  the  light  weapons  of  Antiochus'  forces.27     The  damp,  he  says,  had  no 
effect  on  the  heavy  pila  and  swords  of  the  Romans,  but  it  had  softened  the 
bow-strings,  slings,  and  the 'amenta  jaculorum' used  by  the  king's  soldiers. 
The  light  javelin  was.  as  we  have  seen  in  Greece,  essentially  the  weapon  of  the 
hunter^  and  the  light-armed  soldier,  and    the  strength  oi   Rome  lay  in  her 

/,       .      ireh.    1884,     PI.    III.:    Juthner,  M  Dar.-Sagl.  s.v.  amentum,  Figs 

tjl    62. 
28  F.     Krause,     S^ileudervorrichMmgen    fur 

IVurfwaffen  in  I  "'   xxxvu-  41- 

1902,  pi'.  121  sq. 


heavily  armed  legionaries,  her  light-armed  troops  being  supplied  mostly  by 
allies  and  at  a  later  period  by  mercenaries.  Among  the  enemies  of  Rome 
Ave  undoubtedly  find  a  weapon  thrown  by  means  of  the  amentum.  This  was 
the  tragula  used  by  the  Spaniards  at  the  time  of  the  Second  Punic  War.  In 
Caesar's  time  the  tragula  is  the  weapon  of  the  Gallic  cavalry,  serving  as 
mercenaries  in  his  army.28  From  this  time  we  have  abundant  evidence  of 
the  use  of  the  amentum  in  the  Roman  army.  We  find  traces  of  it  in  the 
Roman  weapons  discovered  at  Alise  Sainte  Reine,  and  we  even  find  it 
represented  on  the  Roman  legionary's  spear."20  But  it  is  unnecessary  to  go 
into  details  of  this  period.  Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  amentum 
was  widely  distiibuted  over  Italy,  Gaul,  and  Spain,  and  that  Rome  probably 
adopted  it,  not  from  Greece,  but  from  her  own  allies  and  subjects.  To  suppose 
that  its  use  spread  from  Greece  to  Rome,  and  thence  to  Gaul  and  Spain,  is 
surely  inconceivable. 

This  view  is  supported  by  evidence  from  other  parts  of  Europe.  We 
have  already  found  the  amentum  at  Watsch  in  Austria.  A  comparison  of  the 
light  javelin  heads  found  in  large  numbers  at  La  Tene  with  those  found  at 
Alise  renders  it  likely  that  the  weapons  to  which  they  belonged  were  thrown 
with  a  thong.30  From  Vergil  we  gather  that  the  use  of  the  throwing  thong- 
was  a  Teutonic  custom."1  In  his  catalogue  of  the  Latin  forces  he  mentions 
two  apparently  similar  weapons,  the  aclys  and  cateia.  The  former  was 
thrown  by  the  '  lento  flagello,'  the  latter  '  ritu  Teutonico.'  Unfortunately  we 
do  not  knew  the  exact  nature  of  the  weapons  mentioned.  Proceeding 
further  north-west  we  find  conclusive  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  amentum 
in  the  early  iron  age  of  Denmark.3'2  Remains  of  it  have  actually  been  found 
at  Nydam.  The  spears  found  are  from  8  to  10  feet  long.  On  the  middle  of 
the  shaft  are  often  visible  a  number  of  small  bronze  rivets,  between  which 
the  cord  was  fastened,  or  a  bronze  mounting  to  mark  the  point  of  balance. 
In  some  cases  the  cord  was  found  still  fastened  between  the  rivets.  Lastly  we 
find  the  amentum  in  Ireland.33  In  ancient  Irish  story  it  is  frequently  mentioned. 
Thus  in  the  battle  of  Moyreth  '  Cuanna  pressing  his  foot  on  the  solid  earth 
put  his  finger  in  the  string  of  his  broad-headed  spear  and  made  a  cast  at 
Congal.'  This  loop — called  suanem,  or  suaineamh — was  made  of  silk  or 
Max,  and  the  laigan  or  spear  to  which  it  was  attached  is  said  to  have  been 
brought  into  Ireland  by  Gaulish  mercenaries  in  the  fourth  century  B.C. 
A  most  interesting  survival  of  this  old  Irish  spear  with  its  loop  is  seen 
on  a  picture  of  Captain  Thomas  Lee  painted  in  1594,  now  in  the  possession 
of  Lord  Dillon,  a  print  of  which  is  in  the  Ashmolean  Museum  at  Oxford. 

The  fixed  amentum  seems  practically  unknown  to  the  modern  savage. 
The  only  example  that  I  can  find  is  a  javelin  from,  the  Pitt  Rivers  collection 
no.    217,  now   in   the  Ashmolean  Museum.     It  is  described  as  coming  from 

Livy,   xxi.    7.    10.   xxiv.    42.    2;     Caesar  3-  ('.  Engelhardt  Denmark  in  the  Early  Iron 

B.C.  i.  2*i,  v.  35,  18  ;  B.C.  i.  57.  Age,  p.  56,  Pis.  X.  5,  0,  XII.  2. 

->  Dar.-Sagl.  s.v.  hasta,  p.  39,  Fig.  3729.  33  P.  W.  Joyce  A  Social  History  of  Ireland, 

Desor  Les palafittes,  p.  86.  i.    113;    O'Curry    Manners    and    Customs    of 

31  Aen.  vii.  730.  741.  Ancient  Ireland,  I.  ccccxliv. 


central   Africa,  where  it    is  probably  a  survival  of  the  javelins  used  by  the 
Roman  mercenaries  occupying  Africa.34 

Another  type  of  throwing  thong,  the  ounep,  is  used  by  the  people  of  New 
Caledonia  and  New  Hebrides.  It  is  a  thickish  cord  about  6  or  8  inches  long 
with  a  loop  at  one  end  for  the  finger  and  a  knot  at  the  other.  The  spears 
are  9  to  12  feet  long  with  a  slight  projection  just  behind  the  centre  of 
gravity,  behind  which  the  cord  is  placed  and  twisted  over  the  knot  in  such 
a  way  as  to  untie  as  the  spear  leaves  the  hand,  remaining  itself  in  the 
thrower's  hand.  An  illustration  of  this  is  taken  from  a  drawing  displayed 
in  the  Ethnographical  Gallery  of  the  British  Museum  (Fig.  4).  A 
combination  of  this  thong  with  the  throwing  stick  is  used  in  New  Zealand. 
The    throwing   stick    is   by    far   the   commonest    means    of    increasing   the 

b  d 

Fig.  4. — Illustration*  of  the  Use  of  the  Throwing  Thong. 
a,  b.  Jiithner,  Figs.  47,  48.       c.  B.M.  B  134.        d.  The  Ounep  of  New  Caledonia. 

throw  of  a  spear.  It  is  widely  used  in  Australia,  Melanesia,  Central  America, 
and  among  the  Eskimos,  but  is  unknown  in  Europe,  though  a  similar 
implement  of  bone  was  apparently  used  by  Palaeolithic  man  in  France.35 

To  sum  up,  the  fixed  amentum  is  an  exclusively  European  invention.  It 
is  found  throughout  Greece  and  Italy,  in  Spain  and  Gaul,  in  Central  Europe,  in. 
Denmark,  and  in  Ireland.  The  light  javelin  to  which  it  belongs  is  essentially 
the  weapon  of  the  less  highly  civilized  peoples.  It  is  a  weapon  of  the  chase,  a 
weapon  of  the  common  people,  but  it  plays  little  part  in  the  heavily  equipped 
citizen  armies  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Both  in  Greece  and  Rome  it  comes  into 
prominence  with  the  organization  of  light-armed  troops,  and  then  it  is  chiefly 
the  weapon  of  the  troops  of  subject  states  and  mercenaries.      Under  these 

34  Bcthnal  (h  ■■   ly77.  ionales  Arehiv,   l>\     B.M. 

p.  40  ;  Pitt   Rivers    7  on  of  Culture,       to  the  Stone  Age,  p.  49. 

pp.  182-4. 

H.S. — VOL.  XXVII. 


circumstances  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  its  use  should  have  originated  in 
Greece,  and  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  amentum  was  a  device 
of  the  peoples  of  Central  Europe,  and  in  the  course  of  their  wanderings  was 
carried  by  them  throughout  the  Southern  and  Western  portions  of  the 

Experiments  have  amply  established  the  practical  use  of  the  amentum 
with  a  light  javelin.  In  the  experiments  made  by  General  Reffye  for  the 
Emperor  Napoleon  it  was  found  that  a  javelin  which  could  be  thrown  only 
20  metres  by  hand  could  be  thrown  80  metres  with  the  amentum.  Accord- 
ing to  Jtitlmer  an  inexperienced  thrower  increased  his  throw  from  25  to  65 
metres.  These  records  are  with  a  light  javelin.  The  javelin  used  in  the 
recent  Olympic  games  was  of  the  Swedish  type,  without  the  amentum,  and 
weighed  800  grammes  or  2  lbs.  Lemming,  the  winner,  threw  it  53*90  metres, 
but  Colonel  V.  Balck  informs  me  that  in  Sweden  he  has  thrown  nearly  55 
metres.     The  old  Greek  javelin  must  have  been  a  much  lighter  weapon. 

C. —  The  Manner  of  Throwing  the  Javelin. 

In  spite  of  frequent  carelessness  and  mistakes  in  the  drawing  of  hands 
and  fingers,  in  spite  of  the  frequent  omission  or  disappearance  of  the  amentum, 
the  vases  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  method  of  throwing  the  javelin  with  the 
amentum.  Two  things  are  necessary  :  the  amentum  must  be  firmly  attached 
to  the  shaft,  and  the  loop  must  be  drawn  tight  by  the  fingers  before  the 
javelin  is  thrown.  We  have  already  seen  the  akontistes  in  the  act  of  fasten- 
ing the  amentum.  On  a  r.-f.  psykter  (Fig.  5)  we  see  a  group  of  javelin 
throwers  preparing  to  practise  under  the  supervision  of  a  paidotribes  and  his 
assistant,  while  two  other  paidotribai  are  obviously  giving  instruction  in 
wrestling.  Two  of  them  are  testing  the  bindings:  resting  one  end  of  the 
iavelin  on  the  ground  and  holding  it  firm  with  the  left  hand,  they  pass  their 
right  hands  along  the  shaft  so  as  to  see  that  the  binding  is  secure.  A  third 
holding  the  javelin  in  the  same  position  is  about  to  pass  his  fingers  through 
the  loop.  The  loop  has  disappeared,  but  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  position 
of  the  hand.  A  fourth  has  already  inserted  his  fingers  through  the  thong, 
and  raising  the  javelin  horizontally  to  a  level  with  his  breast,  presses  it  for- 
ward with  his  left  hand  so  as  to  draw  the  thong  tight.  The  attitude  of  this 
figure  has  caused  quite  unnecessary  difficulty  :  it  is  a  perfectly  natural  posi- 
tion, from  which  by  a  half  turn  to  the  left  any  of  the  preliminary  positions 
which  we  shall  now  describe  may  be  reached. 

Dr.  Jiithner  distinguishes  two  types  of  javelin  throwing,  one  in  which 
the  javelin  is  pointed  more  or  less  upwards,  the  other  in  which  it  is  hori- 
zontal. The  distinction,  in  spite  of  de  Kidder's  denial,  is  a  real  one,  though 
Jiithner  has  not  grasped  the  full  meaning  of  it.  The  so-called  horizontal 
throw  is  the  throw  of  war  or  the  chase,  the  other  the  throw  of  athletic 
competitions.  In  the  latter,  distance  is  the  one  and  only  object,  and  the 
thrower  may  take  his  time  :  in  the  former  distance  is  only  a  secondary  con- 



Bideration,  compared  with  force  and  accuracy,  and  everything  depends  on 
rapidity  of  action.     It  is  the  difference  between  throwing  in  a  cricket-ball  to 

FlG.  5.-R.-F.   Psykter  OF  PHINTIAS.     (Anlilx  Dcnkmdlcr,  ii.  20.) 

the  wicket  and  throwing  a  cricket-ball  in  a  competition.     An  examination  of 
the  two  types  will  make  this  clear. 

(a)  The  Practical  Style, 

The  soldier  or  the  huntsman  must  have  his  javelin  ready  for  use  at 
a  moment's  notice.  He  therefore  carries  it  with  his  lingers  passed  through 
the  loop,  ^W,eW.     He  may  carry  it  horizontally  by  Ins  Side  as  does 



the  warrior  in  Fig.  2,  a  somewhat  cramped  position  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  arm  has  to  be  turned  outwards.  The  freer  and  more  natural  position  is 
with  the  arm  bent  and  the  javelin  sloped  over  the  shoulder  or  across  the  body, 
the  point  downwards.  From  this  position  he  can  draw  it  back  as  does  the  other 
youth  from  the  same  vase,  or  raise  the  elbow  so  that  the  javelin  is  level  with 
the  head,  an  excellent  position  for  taking  aim.  This  manner  of  holding  the 
javelin  is  implied  or  represented  on  many  hunting  or  battle  scenes.  It  is 
equally  serviceable  on  horseback  and  on  foot.  But  the  best  examples  of  it 
are  on  the  two  Panathenaic  amphorae  (PL  XVIII  and  Fig.  6).  On  the  British 
Museum  vase  the  athlete  who  leads  the  procession  carries  his  javelin  at  the 
slope,  the  other  akontistes  has  raised  it  horizontally.  On  the  Leyden  amphora 
the  javelin  is  still  sloping  slightly  downwards.  This  position,  with  the  javelin 
poised  on  a  level  with  the  head,  which  we  may  call  '  the  carry,'  is  the 
natural   preliminary  position    for  starting,    whether   the    thrower   uses    the 

Fig.  6. — Panathenaic  Amphora,  Leyden.     (Arch.  Zcit.  1881,  IX.) 

amentum  or  not.  In  the  latter  case  it  enables  the  thrower  to  balance 
his  weapon  properly.  In  a  photograph  which  Mr.  Bosatiquet  sent  me  of 
Lemming,  the  winner  in  this  competition  at  the  last  Olympic  Games,  the 
latter  is  standing  with  his  javelin  poised  in  this  very  position.  The  javelin 
may  be  kept  in  this  position  during  the  run  or  may  be  at  once  drawn  back. 
On  the  two  vases  in  question  the  thrower  certainly  appears  to  be  running, 
but  the  position  of  the  left  arm  clearly  proves  that  he  is  not  in  the  act  of 
throwing.  Where  time  was  no  object,  as  in  sports,  the  thrower  might  before 
starting  to  run  adjust  the  javelin  by  pressing  the  point  back  with  his  left 
hand  so  as  to  draw  the  amentum  tight,  and  this  movement  is  represented  on 
a  b.-f.  stamnos  in  the  Museo  Gregoriano  (Fig.  7).  From  the  'carry'  the 
thrower  immediately  before  the  throw  draws  back  his  arm  in  the  manner 
represented  on  the  Francois  vase  (Fig.  3).     In  the  actual  throw  the  move- 



nient  is  reversed,  arm  and  spear  travelling  back  through  the  same  positions 
again,  saving  that  when  the  amentum  is  used  the  ringers  loose  their  hold  of 
the  spear  which  (even  before  the  hand  reaches  the  level  of  the  head)  is  hell 
merely  by  means  of  the  thong.  This  is  clearly  shown  on  a  most  interesting 
b.-f.  vase  from  the  Acropolis,  the  upper  zone  of  which  represents  a  battle  of 
chariots  and  the  lower  zone  a  cavalry  fight  between  archers  and  javelin 
throwers.  One  of  the  latter  is  reproduced  in  Fig.  8  from  a  photograph 
of  the  vase  for  which  I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  Drs.  Wolters 
and  Graf,  who  are  engaged  in  the  publication  of  these  vases.36  Perhaps 
the  moment  before  the  actual  throw  is  represented  on  a  Panathenaic 
amphora  in  the  Mnseo  Gregoriano.:;"  The  attitude  of  the  javelin  thrower 
is  very  similar  to  that  shown  on  the  two  Panathenaic  amphorae 
mentioned  above.  The  action  however  is  decidedly  more  vigorous,  the 
body    is    inclined    slightly    forwards,    and    the    left    hand    instead    of    being 

Fig.   7. — B.-F.  Stamnos.     (Museo 
<  rregoriano  II.  xvii. ) 

Fig  8.— B.-F.  Vase.     Acropolis,  Athens 

raised  is  swung  backwards,  while  the  spear  points  slightly  upwards.  The 
only  difficulty  in  this  interpretation  is  that  the  spear  still  rests  between 
the  finger  and  the  thumb,  and  is  not  as  it  should  be  at  this  point  held 
only  by  the  amentum.  But  careful  though  the  early  vase-painters  are 
in  details,  the  realism  of  the  Acropolis  vase  is  certainly  exceptional,  nay 
as  far  as  I  know  unique,  and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  artist 
of  the  Gregoriano  amphora  did  intend  to  lepresent  the  actual  moment  of 
the  throw.  The  three  amphorae  and  the  other  vases  discussed  all  belong 
to  the  sixth  century.  The  style  of  throw  represented  is  typical  of  the  black- 
figured  vases  and  quite  distinct  from  that  which  we  shall  find  ueneral  on  the 
red-figured  vases  of  the  fifth  century.  It  is  the  practical  style  of  the  chase 
and  war  adapted  to  the  palaestra,  and  in  the  fifth  century,  when  owing  to  the 

A  ropolia  vases,  568,  cp.  Jiithner,  p.  52.  variation  occurs  ou  an  archaistic  r.-f.  amphora 

lft«.  Greg,  xliii.  2.  b.     The  other  figures       figured  by  de  Witte  PI.   XXIV, 

are   a   diskobolos  and   an    official.      A    slight  Lug  close  to  the  side. 



development  of  the  heavy-armed  hoplites  the  light  javelin  temporarily  lost  its 
practical  importance,  this  style  was  superseded  by  a  purely  athletic  style. 

Before  proceeding  to  discuss  the  latter  we  must  deal  with  a  question 
which  naturally  arises.  If  the  style  of  throwing  is  that  of  the  chase  and 
war,  does  it  not  follow  that  these  vases  represent  throwing  the  javelin  at  a 
mark  rather  than  for  distance  ?  The  question  is  of  importance  in  connexion 
with  the  nature  of  the  javelin  competition  in  the  pentathlon.  At  first 
sight  the  general  attitude  seems  in  favour  of  throwing  at  a  target ;  but  the 
care  which  the  artists  take  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  spear  point  is 
blunt  is  conclusive  for  a  distance  throw.  There  is  no  evidence  at  any  period 
for  any  kind  of  target  or  mark  for  which  a  blunt  spear  could  be  used.  More- 
over, both  in  sport  and  war  distance  and  force  are  no  less  important  than 
accuracy,  and    it    is   natural   that   as  long  as  the  javelin   was  regarded  as 

Fig.  9.—  R.-F.  Kylix,  Munich.     562  A.     (After  Juthner. ) 

a  military  rather  than  as  an  athletic  implement,  it  should  be  thrown  even  in 
an  athletic  competition  for  distance  in  the  style  most  practically  useful.38 

(b)  The  Athletic  Style. 

The  purely  athletic  character  of  the  style  depicted  on  the  red-figured 
vases  is  obvious  from  the  most  casual  inspection.  Till  the  actual  moment  of 
the  throw  the  head  is  turned  backwards,  the  eyes  fixed  on  the  right  hand,39 
a  position  absurd  alike  for  war  and  for  the  chase,  and  for  throwing  at  a  mark. 
After  carefully  adjusting  and  testing  the  amentum  in  the  manner  described 
and  passing  his  first  finger  or  first  and  middle  fingers  through  the  loop  the 

38  I  have  received  confirmation  of  this  from 
a  friend  who  has  long  resided  in  Central  Africa. 
The  natives  in  war  and  hunting  throw  spears 
much  in  the  style  described  above,  though 
without  the  amentum,  and   in   throwing   the 

spear  for  distance  in  sport  they  use  the  same 
style,  never  the  purely  athletic  style  described 

39  Cp.  Figs.  9,  10,  11,  14.  15. 



thrower  extends  the  right  arm  backwards  to  its  full  length,  while  with  his 
left  hand  opposite  his  right  breast  he  holds  the  end  of  the  spear  and  pushes 
it  backwards  so  as  to  draw  the  thong  tight.  This  is  the